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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds that the inspected items are "signed" and "unactivated", which is some state context, but it says nothing about auth requirements, freshness, or what the inspection returns.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is dense with domain jargon, but every word carries content and nothing is redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description bears full responsibility for explaining return content, and it doesn't — three distinct artifacts are named with no indication of shape, granularity, or ordering. For a zero-parameter inspection tool whose entire value is the returned data, that is a substantive 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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description does not introduce any spurious inputs or implied arguments.

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?

"Inspect" is a generic verb, but the description does enumerate three specific artifacts (signed delegation sandbox, limits, unactivated service-fee contract), which hints at scope. However, the jargon is unexplained and it is unclear whether these are three separate outputs or one aggregate view, so an agent cannot confidently predict what it gets back.

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 statement of when to call this versus companions like xguard.authority.verify_receipt or xguard.preflight, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must guess the triggering condition from the name alone.

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