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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions returning a 'capped sample' and a 'grid,' but does not describe safety (read-only, mutability), authorization needs, or what happens if the source is not enabled. The information is too sparse for an agent to infer potential side effects or constraints.

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 sentences and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value; there is no extraneous information.

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?

Given 9 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what a 'figure' or 'enabled inspection source' is, nor does it describe the return structure beyond a vague reference to a 'capped sample' and 'grid.' More context is needed for effective use.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description offers no additional meaning for the 9 parameters (e.g., source_key, scenario_id, limit). While baseline for zero parameter coverage is 4, the description fails to compensate by clarifying any parameter semantics, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema.

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 clearly states the tool inspects row-level detail behind a figure from an enabled inspection source. It uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('row-level detail'), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like get_inspection_schema or list_inspection_sources, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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. The description does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or context for when inspect_rows is appropriate over alternatives like run_statement or list_inspection_sources.

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