Inspect a current native operation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the data is local, reviewed, and involves no credentials or provider request, which reinforces and explains the non-open-world, read-only profile. It stops short of describing the returned object's shape or staleness/versioning of the 'reviewed' data.

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 compact sentences with no filler, and the core capability is front-loaded ahead of the negative constraint. 'Local reviewed' is the one slightly vague phrase, but the whole definition is well under the size budget.

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-only introspection tool with no output schema, the description conveys what comes back (method/path/query/body schema plus provenance) and the key safety guarantee. It does not detail the response structure or what 'provenance' contains, which is a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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?

There is a single 'operation' parameter with 100% schema description coverage and an explicit enum, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no format or selection guidance beyond the schema's own 'Exact native tool name, e.g. update_subscription or refund_order.' Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (inspect/return) and resource (method/path/query/body schema plus provenance for one native tool), and distinguishes itself from the many native operation siblings by being the local introspection tool rather than the caller. The scope 'for one native tool' is precise. 'Local reviewed' is slightly jargon-y but does not obscure the purpose.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is how you learn an operation's contract before invoking it, and 'No credentials or provider request' hints it is a safe, side-effect-free lookup. However, it never states when to use this versus just calling the native tool directly, nor names any alternative.

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