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

Annotations only say this isn't a read-only/idempotent/destructive call; the description goes far beyond that. It discloses the single-use 10-minute expiry, the security implication that anyone holding an unused link is signed in as the person, and the limitation that library reports open read-only with non-functional executes — all things an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and the security/expiry constraint early, then handles the library caveat and return values. It is dense rather than padded, though the layout is a run-on block and the 'choices ... as there' cross-reference is slightly terse.

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?

Covers what the agent needs: return fields (url, expiresInMinutes, reportName), the error case mirroring get_report_data, the read-only library branch, and the confidentiality obligation. With no output schema, describing the returns and errors is exactly the right compensation.

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%, so all four parameters including the nested choices object are already documented. The description only adds the ordering semantics that choices are applied before opening and that reportId/database behave as in get_report_data; useful but marginal against a fully documented schema.

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 and resource (opens a report in the person's own browser) and immediately scopes it: it is the live, interactive report signed in as the user, not a data dump. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_report_data, which is named as the sibling that returns figures instead.

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?

Gives an explicit decision rule: use this when the person should see or work in the report, use get_report_data when they want figures in chat. It also covers the library-report variant (read-only, no Save, executes don't run) and tells the agent to communicate that to the person, plus a hard operational constraint that the agent must act immediately rather than cache the link.

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