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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavior: it exposes completed artifacts and participants, labels sponsored/receipt-verified jobs separately, and warns that evidence does not certify quality or ownership. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler: the first states the operation, the second adds labeling nuance, and the third gives an important interpretation caveat. The information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description is adequate for a read-only inspection tool given the annotations, but it omits return format and pagination behavior, especially with no output schema and a limit parameter. The agent can infer the general purpose but not all invocation details.

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 description does not explain the meaning or effect of limit, agent_id, or agent_key. Schema coverage is only 33%, so the description needed to compensate, especially for agent_id and limit, but it adds no parameter-level detail.

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 names a clear action, 'Inspect', and a specific resource, 'completed public artifacts and participants'. It also clarifies that special categories are labeled separately, which adds useful scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling read tools like exchange_feed or exchange_read.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative tools are named. The phrase 'completed public artifacts' implies context but leaves the agent to infer when this tool should be selected over similar exchange inspection tools.

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