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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations it adds real behavioral context: preview is gated on current data:delete authority, fences/deletes nothing, expired or deleted content does not surface as an empty success, backups have separate retention, and no deletion/cascade/reconciliation/credential issuance is exposed. The phrasing is hedged and indirect ('advertised', 'never truncated consent'), which slightly blunts otherwise rich disclosure.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the remainder is a dense chain of clause-heavy, abstract sentences with overlapping negatives ('No deletion, cascade consent, reconciliation, target execution or credential issuance is exposed') that an agent must parse slowly. Some wording earns its place; several phrases are redundant restatements of 'read-only'.

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 carries the return-semantics burden and does so for the surprising cases (expired content is not an empty success; backups separate) plus pagination behavior. Permission requirements are flagged. Remaining gaps are the per-parameter details and any routing versus firedrill_lifecycle/firedrill_preview.

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% on a nested oneOf with effectively eight distinguishable fields. The description names the three action modes and mentions metadata cursors, but never explains id, kind, limit, or removalId (including its removal_<hex> pattern), so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb (inspect) and three concrete resources (data-lifecycle policy, retained metadata, removal receipt), which maps cleanly onto the three oneOf request variants. It is less clear at differentiating from siblings with similar scopes such as firedrill_lifecycle or firedrill_preview, which the description never mentions.

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 states usable conditions ('Available even in readonly mode') and an explicit when-not: removal is performed by human owners through CLI/SDK confirmation, not this tool. It does not, however, contrast itself against any named sibling tool, so routing among the ~45 related tools 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.