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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuinely useful trait beyond the schema: a per-call cost of 0.002 USDC. But it omits whether inspection is advisory or blocking, what the policy argument changes, and any auth or rate-limit behavior for a paid gate.

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?

A single front-loaded clause with no filler; the scope and cost are stated compactly. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is part of why the behavioral and parameter gaps exist.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a paid, complex-input preflight with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter documentation, the description leaves key questions unanswered (blocking vs advisory, policy semantics, payload format). It is too thin for the tool's complexity.

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% across three parameters, including two required nested/opaque objects. The description conceptually names 'data' and 'destination' (mapping loosely to payload and destination) but says nothing about the optional 'policy' object, what shape payload/destination take, or what policy controls.

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 ('Inspect') with its resources ('outbound agent data and destination') and timing scope ('before transmission'), which is enough to distinguish it from payment-oriented siblings like payment_preflight. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead, so it falls just below full sibling differentiation.

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?

'Before transmission' implies the usage context, so an agent can infer this is a pre-send gate. However, with numerous preflight/guard siblings (counterparty_risk_preflight, tool_call_policy_guard, transaction_assurance), no guidance is given on when this is the correct gate versus the others, and no exclusions are stated.

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