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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond these by stating it 'does not write a recipe' and 'never retries preparation', clarifying the non-mutating one-shot behavior. It also discloses that it returns 'limits' which is useful context. No contradiction.

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?

The description is two sentences with no redundant phrasing. The main action is front-loaded, followed by return values, exclusions, and fallback guidance. 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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately lists the returned identifiers and limits. It also clarifies what it does NOT do (write a recipe) and directs to the correct sibling in case of uncertainty. The only missing piece is parameter-level semantics, but the schema fully documents those, so the balance is adequate for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 three required parameters (dataset_id, question, source). However, it only mentions 'HTTPS source' which merely repeats the schema's URL pattern. It provides no additional meaning for dataset_id or question, and does not explain the nested rights_claim structure. The description adds negligible value over the schema for parameter understanding.

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 specific verbs ('Prepares', 'opens', 'queues') and identifies the resource ('HTTPS source'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling get_source_inspection by naming it directly. The purpose is unambiguous even without reading the schema.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use the alternative: 'If uncertain, preserve the coordinates and call get_source_inspection'. It also states a behavioral constraint ('never retries preparation'), giving clear guidance on when NOT to retry. This is a fully explicit usage clause.

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