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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what the payload covers (dual-mappings, hand seals, bound Action Skeletons) but says nothing about volume, structure, or whether the canon is static; with no output schema this is a modest gap.

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?

A single sentence with no filler; the resource is front-loaded and the content enumeration is compact.

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 no-param, no-output-schema read of an unfamiliar corpus, the description should convey what the agent actually receives (static dump? large document? keyed sections?); it enumerates categories in dense jargon without indicating scale or shape. Adequate but leaves a real 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?

Zero parameters and an empty schema, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.

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 a specific resource (the canonical Sutra canon) plus the four categories of content it exposes. It does not differentiate itself from the many sutra.* siblings (sutra.list, sutra.cast, sutra.compile, sutra.route), and 'canonical ... canon' is somewhat circular, but the purpose is legible.

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 guidance on when to use this versus sutra.list, sutra.hexagram, sutra.compile, or sutra.route, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer from the names alone which sutra.* tool to pick.

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