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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context by warning that the call is paid per call via x402 when payments are enabled and by enumerating the report contents.

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 tight sentences with no wasted wording. It front-loads the report contents and follows with the payment condition and a pointer to quantum_pricing.

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 low-complexity, one-parameter read-only report with no output schema, the description covers the main return categories and the payment condition. It leaves some ambiguity around “the checkpoint” and does not explain pagination or limits, but the core context is present.

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 100% description coverage, and the single optional hours parameter is documented as a look-back window. The description does not add further meaning about how the report uses that window, so it sits at the baseline for well-documented schemas.

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 states the report contents: inspections, interceptions by reason, latest interceptions, and the policy in force. It is specific about what the resource reports, but it does not distinguish this tool from sibling inspector tools such as inspector_status or inspector_check.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this report versus alternatives like inspector_status, inspector_check, or inspector_patrol. The only contextual note is about payment via x402, which is billing information rather than usage guidance.

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