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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates a read-only operation, and the description adds little beyond that. It does not disclose potential side effects, error behaviors, or specific constraints beyond the annotation. The word 'free' vaguely suggests no side effects but adds minimal transparency.

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 a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary verbiage. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without redundancy, making it easily parseable.

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 the simplicity of the tool, the description is functional but incomplete. It does not explain what the inspection returns (e.g., a report, boolean), how errors are handled, or what 'basic object contracts' entails. The lack of an output schema and detailed parameter descriptions leaves gaps for an agent.

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 schema provides no descriptions for 'value' or 'schema', but the description gives some context: 'value' is the structured agent output and 'schema' defines required fields and basic contracts. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though it does not fully specify parameter types or detailed roles.

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 identifies the tool's action ('inspect') and target ('structured agent output') against requirements ('required fields and basic object contracts'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'inspect_rag_evidence' or 'analyze_tool_description'. It lacks specificity on the exact nature of the inspection (e.g., validation vs. analysis) but is adequately clear.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where 'inspect_rag_evidence' or 'analyze_tool_description' would be more appropriate. This leaves the agent without clear usage context.

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