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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the raw endpoint: no mention of 404 behavior for unknown UUIDs, embedding cost, or what 'included' looks like on return.

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, zero padding, with the core purpose front-loaded before the endpoint reference. Nothing to trim.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and existing read-only annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. A brief note about what the response contains (the included embeds) or missing-ID behavior would close the remaining gap.

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% — both inspection_id (UUID pattern, sourced from street_list_inspections) and include (allowed enum values, maxItems 3) are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the include behavior, so 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 (get) and resource (one inspection) keyed by UUID, and mentions the include mechanism. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the many list_* siblings by emphasizing a single record, though it never names street_list_inspections as the alternative.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the single-record counterpart to street_list_inspections. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or prerequisite statement in the description itself (the ID provenance hint lives in the schema, not the description).

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