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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds 'Free; no setup' which provides extra context about cost and setup requirements not present in annotations. However, it does not disclose the output format, response behavior, or any side effects beyond what annotations imply, so only partial value is added.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no redundant words. The primary purpose is front-loaded ('Inspect executable outcomes, prices and examples'), and the additional note about being free and setup-free is concise and relevant. It earns its place efficiently.

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 simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose but omits any detail about what the inspection returns (e.g., list vs. single object, format, or pagination). Given the sibling tools for execution and results, some guidance on the discover output would improve completeness. However, it is adequate for a minimal discovery tool.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is an empty object. With no parameters to describe, the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description adds no parameter-related information, but none is needed. Nothing is left unexplained.

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 description states a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('executable outcomes, prices and examples'), which clearly indicates a discovery/inspection tool. It implies differentiation from siblings (execute and get_result) through the verb choice, but does not explicitly contrast them. Still, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings xguard_execute or xguard_get_result. The phrase 'Free; no setup' hints at accessibility but does not address selection criteria, prerequisites, or alternatives. Usage context 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.