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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds value by disclosing what the inspection includes and by clarifying a data-provenance nuance: GitHub reports are kept separate from firsthand Pod observations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is two tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action, input source, and output categories; the second sentence adds a useful caveat about data separation. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the output schema, complete parameter schema, and safety annotations, this description is sufficient. It tells the agent what the tool does, what it returns, and the key provenance distinction, while leaving detailed field semantics to the schema where they already exist.

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%, and each parameter already has a clear description, especially the required id ('Exact canonical MCP ID returned by find_mcp'). The tool description does not add extra parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 description states a specific verb ('Inspect'), a specific resource type ('one canonical MCP from find_mcp'), and enumerates the exact content categories returned: upstream claims, deployments, Pod-observed tools, and GitHub issues. This clearly differentiates inspect_mcp from the discovery-oriented find_mcp and other siblings.

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 implied rather than explicit: the description says the server comes 'from find_mcp', suggesting the agent should call find_mcp first and then inspect one canonical result. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over search, fetch, or feedback, nor does it include when-not-to-use guidance.

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