Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value: result pagination ("bounded page"), a field-level caveat that last_success_at means successful collection rather than last update, and an explicit scope exclusion for credentials, configuration, and internal error logs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then a semantic caveat, then a scope exclusion — each sentence earns its place. Slightly dense phrasing ("source verification/collection status") costs it the top mark.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the data-scope and last_success_at caveats are genuinely complete. But with five optional parameters at 20% coverage, an agent still lacks guidance on query/company/language usage, leaving a real gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 20% (language alone), so the description must carry the other four parameters. It never mentions query, company, offset, or limit, and only gestures at pagination via "bounded page" without explaining ranges or filtering behavior.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ("Inspect") and a concrete resource ("source verification/collection status and the current topic definitions"), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like get_resource or search_resources, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to call this versus get_resource/search_resources, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Usage must be inferred from the phrase "publicly visible," which is not enough routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.