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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on behavior for an unknown source_key, no caching/freshness context, and no return shape. It is consistent but purely additive-free.

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 zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 tool whose sole purpose is returning a schema, the description does not describe the return shape or units an agent should expect, and there is no output schema to compensate. The lone parameter is undocumented at 0% coverage, leaving the description under-specified for correct invocation.

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 schema gives no meaning for source_key. The phrase 'inspection source' loosely ties the parameter to that concept, but the description omits format expectations, where valid keys originate, and that the parameter is required.

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 (get) and resource (column schema for an inspection source), which implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like list_inspection_sources (lists sources) and inspect_rows (returns rows). However, it never names or contrasts with those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent must guess that source_key comes from list_inspection_sources and that this tool is a prerequisite step before inspect_rows.

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