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

The description adds real behavior beyond the annotations: it is paid per call via x402 when payments are enabled and points to quantum_pricing for details, which is the kind of cost/auth context annotations cannot carry. It also discloses the detection heuristics behind the list. With readOnlyHint already declaring the safety profile, this is solid coverage; the only gap is not describing the shape of returned entries.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the qualifying conditions and followed by the pricing note. The imperative 'Block them or demand a fresh inspector_check' is the one clause that could be read as tool behavior rather than caller advice, costing a little clarity.

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 parameterless read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what populates the list and the x402 payment condition, which is most of what an agent needs before calling. It stops short of saying what a returned entry looks like, but the core invocation decision is well supported.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a no-parameter tool applies, with no parameter-level deficiency.

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The description enumerates what qualifies an agent for the list (revoked, outdated, expiring, never certified, weak key, impersonated) but never states the verb: it never says 'returns/lists the watchlist'. The final clause ('Block them or demand a fresh inspector_check') describes what the caller should do with results, which momentarily reads like the tool itself performs blocking, muddying the purpose.

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?

It gives post-retrieval guidance (block the agent or require a fresh inspector_check), which is useful triage context. However, it never states when to call this tool rather than siblings like inspector_check, inspector_patrol, inspector_status, or inspector_report, so the selection decision is left to inference.

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