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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the critical behavioral restriction: default-deny policy prevents redistribution of current CFETS/ChinaMoney values, so the tool returns only policy digest, UTC clocks, per-source decisions, and zero published-record status. It also states that filters cannot override source rights and that observation rows are never read or returned.

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?

The description is two dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It leads with purpose, immediately states the most important restriction, and every sentence adds necessary context.

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?

For a tool with 14 optional parameters and no output schema, the description explains the non-obvious return behavior and rights context well. It could be slightly more specific about the shape of 'policy digest' and 'per-source decisions,' but the essential expectations are clearly set.

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 coverage is 93%, so most parameters are already documented. The description adds valuable cross-cutting semantics by explaining that filters are validated for contract compatibility but cannot override source rights, which applies to all filter parameters and is not inferable from the schema alone.

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 clearly identifies a specific action ('Inspect') and resource ('native publication-rights status for the China-economic observation surface'). It also explicitly states what the tool returns and does not return, distinguishing it from an ordinary observation-query tool despite the misleading name.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to check publication rights and policy status, not to retrieve observation rows. It explicitly excludes observation data retrieval, though it does not name alternative tools or provide an explicit when-not-to-use comparison.

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