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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: the report is immutable and committed, it is verified against saved document bytes and packaging provenance, and it surfaces effective saved seed/group fields rather than caller-supplied recipe values. Only the exact-revision requirement is stated without detail on failure 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?

Three dense sentences with the core read action and its authoritative-source nature front-loaded. No filler, though 'packaging provenance' and 'effective saved seed/group fields' are compressed enough to be slightly opaque.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a two-parameter read tool the description is nearly complete; the only gap is projectId semantics and the exact-revision prerequisite is asserted without stating what happens on a mismatch.

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% for both parameters, so the description must carry the meaning. It does clarify that revisionId must be an exact committed revision, but projectId is never addressed and no format or identifier semantics are given. Partial compensation caps this at the baseline 3.

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 gives a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('immutable committed ngPlant inspection report'), and clarifies it reports saved state rather than a caller recipe, which implicitly separates it from vegetation_create/vegetation_edit. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it does not fully earn a 5, and terms like 'packaging provenance' are jargon-heavy.

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?

'Requires exact revision; no generation or compute' tells the agent a prerequisite and rules out generation behavior, which is genuine usage context. However, it never states when to prefer this over siblings such as vegetation_edit or scene_inspect, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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