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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying bounded evidence, the exact status vocabulary, and the notable behavior that a missing legacy endpoint is reported as capability unavailable and not emulated.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action and identifying parameters are front-loaded, followed by the return statuses and a meaningful edge case. 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?

For a simple two-parameter read operation, the description covers purpose, parameters, return status vocabulary, and a non-obvious availability behavior. There is no output schema, so the exact return shape is unspecified, but 'bounded evidence' plus the status list gives sufficient orientation for a safe call.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden and does name both parameters as the lookup keys: session_id and probe_id. However, it adds no further meaning about their format, relationship, or expected values beyond what the schema already provides as plain string constraints.

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 uses the specific verb 'Reads' and names the resource ('one source inspection'), keyed by session_id and probe_id. It clearly positions this as a status-read tool, distinct from start_source_inspection and the run/table tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling 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?

The mention of returning statuses like queued, complete, truncated, or failed implies this is the status-checking counterpart to source-inspection orchestration, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool over related tools or when not to use it. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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