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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful bits beyond that: binary contents are never returned (output scope) and the file must be 'authorized' (a permission precondition). It stops short of explaining what 'decoded table' inspection actually yields.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded. Slightly terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a tool sitting among list/process/retry/delete ECU-file siblings, the description leaves the agent without selection criteria or param clarification, making it only minimally sufficient.

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 carries the full burden for two parameters. It only weakly maps them: 'one ECU file' gestures at id and 'optionally a decoded table' gestures at table, but neither the id format nor what 'table' identifies (name? identifier? index?) is clarified.

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 (ECU file) plus an optional decoded table. The word 'one' implicitly separates it from list_ecu_files, but it never names that sibling or distinguishes itself from process_ecu_file/retry_ecu_file explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not guidance. With siblings process_ecu_file, retry_ecu_file, and list_ecu_files, an agent gets no rule for choosing inspect over processing or retrying. The only usage signal is the word 'optionally' for the table parameter.

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