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

Annotations already establish this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive inspection operation. The description adds useful context that ports are 'resolved' and that this differs from the direct-job schema. It does not describe error behavior for unknown tools or what the resolved port data looks like.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the key distinction. No wasted words.

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 one-parameter read tool, but with no output schema and no parameter documentation, an agent still lacks the ability to confidently specify the tool argument or know the shape of the resolved port data. The conceptual purpose is covered, but operational completeness is only partial.

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 description must compensate for the single undocumented 'tool' parameter. It does not say whether 'tool' expects a name, ID, or path, nor any format constraints. This leaves a meaningful gap for the only required parameter.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Inspect a scientific tool with its resolved workflow input/output ports.' It also distinguishes this from the direct-job input schema, which helps separate it from get_tool. It does not explicitly name get_tool as the sibling alternative, keeping it from a 5.

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?

It clearly states the usage context: 'before connecting graph nodes.' The phrase 'This is separate from its direct-job input schema' gives further guidance on when to prefer this over the direct-job schema path. There is no explicit when-not-to-use statement or named alternative.

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