inspect_register

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts beyond that: pagination is one-based, and partial results (missing batches/unknown totals) surface as errors rather than partial successes. This is real added context, though 'proven total' and 'missing batches' remain unexplained jargon.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and return behavior. Minimal waste, though the trailing one-based note and the error sentence are slightly clipped and could be integrated more cleanly.

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 fully explained, and the description appropriately gestures at the result shape. However, with 0% parameter coverage, the meaning of 'limit' and 'url' is missing, and the error condition is stated without saying what a caller should do about it, leaving the definition only minimally complete for a 3-parameter tool.

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 carry the semantics, but it only addresses one parameter: 'start is one-based,' which disambiguates indexing beyond the bare minimum=1 in the schema. The 'limit' and 'url' parameters are given no meaning, so most of the burden is unmet.

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 and resource ('Discover all scan references') plus the return shape ('proven total and a paginated scan list'), which tells an agent this is a listing/discovery operation. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from plausible siblings like search_acts or get_record, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The closest thing to guidance is the error note ('missing batches/unknown totals are errors'), which is a behavioral constraint rather than a routing rule.

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