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

Annotations already declare readOnly/not-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value past that: an access-scope constraint ('public' sources only, no private or arbitrary ones), which the annotations do not express.

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 sentences, no filler. The scope and the enumeration of inspectable content come first, the limitation second; every clause earns its place.

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 spelled out, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the remaining piece an agent needs – source-ID provenance and the public-only restriction – leaving no material gap.

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 burden for the single source_id parameter. It compensates reasonably by stating the ID must be a public ID obtained from search, matching the '^public-pg-[0-9]+$' pattern, though it does not restate the ID's format explicitly.

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 ('one public source ID'), and enumerates what is returned (work, edition, translator, catalog, fingerprint, locator inventory). The phrase 'returned by search' positions it downstream of search_library and separates it from the evidence-oriented siblings.

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?

Implies the prerequisite (an ID produced by search) and gives an explicit exclusion: private or arbitrary sources cannot be inspected. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative or stating what to do when the ID is not from search, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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