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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: summary mode ignores pagination while other views return records/total/next_offset (return shape, which matters because there is no output schema), plus the caveat that retrieval age is not observation freshness.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: coverage scope first, then pagination semantics, then the routing pointer. The telegraphic fragments ('Summary takes no pagination') are efficient rather than wasteful, though the style borders on too terse to parse on first read.

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 output schema, the description does supply the return envelope shape, which is the most important missing piece. However, core domain concepts ('rights', 'clocks', individual view meanings) remain undefined, so an agent knows how to call it but not fully what each view yields.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It partially compensates by explaining that 'summary' takes no pagination while other views paginate, which hints at limit/offset behavior, but the enum values datasets, flows, and exports are never explained, so the primary selector remains opaque.

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?

States a specific verb (Inspect) and resource domain (corpus coverage, rights, clocks), and the title reinforces the scope as public corpus coverage plus source clocks. It is distinguishable from siblings at a high level, though the jargon 'rights' and 'clocks' is not unpacked, so an agent still has to infer what is actually being inspected.

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?

Explicitly routes market-reading queries away from this tool: 'Use liquidity_tiers for market readings.' That is a concrete alternative with a selecting condition. It does not, however, say when to choose each view or when the corpus context is actually relevant, so guidance is clear but incomplete.

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