inspect_ingestion

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds only that the output is a 'deterministic receipt' tied to a source, but says nothing about what the receipt contains, what happens if the record has no source, or its size/shape — a gap since no output schema exists.

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 sentence with no filler; the artifact being returned is named immediately. It is efficiently worded, though the terseness contributes to the ambiguity noted elsewhere.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the description is minimally viable but under-specified: the recordId input is undefined, the receipt's contents are unexplained, and no output schema exists to fall back on. An agent can guess the call signature but not what it will get back.

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?

One parameter (recordId) with 0% schema description coverage and no enum, so the schema contributes nothing beyond type and minLength. The description references 'one context record' but never clarifies whether recordId is that context record's ID, a source ID, or something else, leaving the parameter's meaning underdetermined.

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 ('Show') and a specific artifact (a 'deterministic receipt linking one context record to its synthetic Markdown source'), which is more than a tautology. However, 'deterministic receipt' is unexplained jargon, and the description gives no signal distinguishing it from the sibling explain_source, which plausibly covers the same record-to-source relationship.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of alternatives such as explain_source, search_context, or validate_record. The agent must infer from the name alone whether this is a lookup, an audit, or a debugging tool.

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