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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: payment/execution are safety-paused and catalog entries can be LEGACY or BLOCKED, not sellable. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent insight into possible service states without contradicting the 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 sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds distinct information (what is inspected and the current safety state). Efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the simplicity (one parameter), annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It indicates what information is returned (status, schema, payment readiness) and notes the paused state. Minor gaps include not specifying the response format or error behavior, but these are acceptable for a read-only inspection tool.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'by ID', which is redundant with the parameter name 'service_id'. It does not explain the format, constraints (beyond maxLength), or any expected value semantics. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's type and name.

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 states a specific verb ('Inspect'), resource ('canonical service by ID'), and scope ('status, input/output schema and payment readiness'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on a single service via ID, unlike presumably broader discovery tools. The read-only nature is also highlighted.

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 description implies when to use this tool (when you need details on a specific service by ID) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. There is no explicit routing to siblings like autonomy_discover or autonomy_services. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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