Inspect native contract

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/non-open-world. The description adds context beyond them: the data is 'local', 'reviewed', has 'pinned schema provenance', and explicitly does 'no provider access' and makes no 'authority proof'. That is meaningful caveat disclosure, though it does not describe the shape or completeness of the returned contract.

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 terse fragments with little waste, but the front-loaded text is opaque rather than informative; a reader must parse a noun list to reconstruct the tool's job.

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 no output schema, the description bears the burden of explaining return content. It gestures at the fields returned (method/path/query/body/scopes/rate limit/schema provenance) but does not clarify structure or what an agent should do with them, and gives no guidance for a single enum-constrained param.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0% and a single 'operation' parameter, the description must carry the meaning. It implies the parameter selects among native operations (method/path/etc. belong to the chosen operation), and the enum values are largely self-describing, but it never states what the parameter accepts or where its values come from.

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 title 'Inspect native contract' and the description's list (method/path/query/body/scopes/rate limit/schema provenance) hint that this returns a native API operation's contract, but the description is a noun fragment with no clear verb. An agent can guess it inspects an operation's definition rather than fetching live data, yet the exact purpose is left to inference.

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 mention of prerequisites, and no routing to or away from siblings. 'No provider access or authority proof' is a scope caveat rather than usage direction.

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