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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds a meaningful behavioral guarantee: 'Secrets and raw database access are never returned.' This gives agents useful safety-relevant context beyond the annotations, though it does not describe the output shape or pagination behavior.

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 sentences with the primary action and resource front-loaded, followed by a list of contents and a safety exclusion. Minor redundancy exists between 'complete' and 'every registered,' but overall 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?

For a zero-parameter overview tool with no output schema, the description provides the scope, content categories, and an important exclusion. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what this tool returns and why it is safe, though a sentence about the result format would make it fully complete.

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 are zero parameters, so the schema already covers all input concerns. The description adds useful context about the implicit scope ('authenticated business's'), satisfying the 0-params baseline of 4 without needing further parameter documentation.

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') and a well-defined resource ('the authenticated business's complete LocalTry feature catalog'), then enumerates what that includes. It is clear and distinct from a generic 'overview' tautology, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_workspace_versions or search_localtry_features.

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?

The description implies this is the tool for a broad catalog inspection, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings such as get_recent_activity, search_localtry_features, or get_workspace_customization_status. No alternative conditions or exclusions are stated.

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