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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description only needs to add context. It does: "owned" signals an ownership/access scoping requirement, and "latest stored link health" hints the health data is cached rather than live, unlike a real-time check.

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, ~15 words, with the read-before-write directive front-loaded and the returned fields packed into the first sentence. No filler.

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?

For a read-only, one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what comes back (destination, design, link health, revision), which is the main information an agent would otherwise lack. Minor gaps remain around error/not-found behavior and id format, but nothing critical.

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% — the single id parameter has only type/format/pattern, no prose. The description implies the id identifies an owned QR code, which is minimal but sufficient orientation for a one-parameter lookup; it adds nothing about the UUID form or unknown-id behavior.

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) and resource (an owned QR code), and enumerates the returned facets: destination, design, link health, revision. This clearly separates it from list_qr_codes (plural) and render_qr, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

"Read before updating" gives one concrete usage cue tied to the mutation flow. However, no alternative is named (e.g. check_qr_link for a live check vs. this stored-health read), so the agent must infer when this beats the siblings.

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