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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds genuine value with the upstream-provider-health disclaimer, clarifying that the tool reports the registry's local view rather than asserting external system status — behavioral nuance the annotations do not express. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the clarifying scope disclaimer is appended without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what is returned; it names the three inspected aspects clearly. The absence of return-format details is acceptable for a simple, no-arg status tool, and the annotations already cover the operational contract.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is trivially 100% covered (empty object), so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description lists the inspection dimensions (version, commercial status, transport capabilities), which maps well to the intended return content even though no input parameters need elaboration.

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') with a defined resource (registry) and enumerates the concrete outputs: version, honest commercial status, and transport capabilities. It is clearly distinct in intent from siblings like discover/services, though it does not explicitly name them. The phrasing 'honest commercial status' is slightly idiosyncratic but conveys the report's content.

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?

The final sentence, 'This does not claim upstream provider health,' provides a negative scope exclusion — telling the agent what this tool is NOT for. However, it never names sibling alternatives (autonomy_discover, autonomy_service, autonomy_services) or states when to prefer them, leaving routing largely to inference.

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