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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds real value beyond them: no authentication or account required, a data-classification restriction on inputs, and an explicit negative capability boundary ('Never a trust score or recommendation'), which prevents a plausible misuse. It does not discuss rate limits or failure modes.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct load: trigger, inputs, return contents, and boundaries. The usage trigger is front-loaded and nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the return contents (evidence coverage, conflicts, gaps, GAIP's own earlier checks, a receipt). Combined with the input guidance for a nine-parameter, zero-required tool, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though the sibling-tool choice remains unaddressed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters, including the observations item shape and max_age_days semantics. The description only calls out counterparty_id and observations, adding no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 (inspect), resource (counterparty evidence) and the trigger scenario (before delegating to an agent). It is clear what the tool returns, but it never names or contrasts with its closest sibling, gaip_evidence_pack, so an agent must infer which of the two evidence tools fits.

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?

Gives an explicit usage trigger ('when asked what evidence exists about an agent before delegating to it') and constraints ('free, read-only, no account; inputs must be public and non-personal'). It lacks any when-not guidance or explicit routing against the sibling evidence/receipt tools.

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