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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: actionable items persist across sessions (no agent-side memory needed) while informational items are shown once and require `since` to re-surface. It doesn't mention result size limits or rate/volume behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the 'call first' directive, then the payload contents, then the persistence semantics. It is dense but every sentence carries information; the long enumeration of item types is useful but slightly list-heavy.

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 carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so by naming the fields and the `respond_with` envelope (tool, allowed actions, args template). Gaps remain around pagination, `limit`, and `types` filtering, which matter for a tool positioned as the mandatory session entry point.

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 25%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies `since` (re-show informational items after a time, defaulting to the previous inbox call), but gives no guidance on `limit`, `cursor` pagination, or the meaning of the `types` enum values, leaving half the parameters opaque.

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 and a rich resource: returns the calling identity, grant scope, owner's party, offerings/needs, and all pending response items. It enumerates the item kinds (questions, quote requests, orders, bookings, contact proposals, matches, approvals), so an agent can tell exactly what this tool yields versus the sibling mutators like search or respond.

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?

"Call first in every session" is an explicit, unambiguous trigger, and the note that actionable items persist until handled gives the agent a reason to re-call. It does not explicitly say when NOT to use it or name a competing sibling, but the routing to respond_with covers the follow-up path.

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