operations_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds value by specifying what state is revealed (binding, expiry, use state) and reinforcing that the receipt is not consumed, but it says nothing about error cases (expired/already-used receipts) or auth requirements.

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 zero filler, and the non-mutating qualifier is placed at the end where it reads as a constraint on the whole action.

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 full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description carries enough: what is inspected and that nothing is applied. The only real gap is the unstated relationship to operations_verify.

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 100%, with the single 'receipt' parameter fully documented as 'one-time operation receipt returned by a preview tool'. The description mentions inspecting a receipt but adds no format, sourcing, or validity guidance beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (inspect) and the exact object of inspection (receipt binding, expiry, use state), and the clause 'without applying it' separates it from the write path in operations_apply. It does not address how this differs from the sibling operations_verify, which an agent could easily confuse with inspection.

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?

'Without applying it' implies the tool is for checking a receipt before calling operations_apply, so the usage context is inferable. However, no alternative is named, no exclusions are stated, and the boundary against operations_verify is left unclear.

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