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

While annotations confirm read-only/idempotent safety, the description adds critical behavioral context: the return format ('base64-encoded PDF content'), cost ('Free'), and state prerequisites ('completed'). Does not cover rate limits or error scenarios, preventing a 5.

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?

Four sentences with zero waste: purpose, return format, workflow prerequisites, and cost. Information is front-loaded and densely packed without redundancy.

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 single-parameter download tool, the description is complete: output format is specified (compensating for lack of output schema), prerequisites are documented, and cost is disclosed. No gaps remain for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description repeats the schema's guidance on report_id sourcing from sibling tools but does not add semantic nuance (e.g., number format, validation rules) beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a precise action ('Download') and resource ('completed CeeVee report as PDF'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling atlas_download_report and metadata tools like ceevee_get_report by specifying the PDF output format and CeeVee domain.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisites: 'Only call after ceevee_get_report confirms status=completed'. Also traces the data lineage for report_id back to specific sibling tools (ceevee_generate_report, ceevee_list_reports), establishing clear workflow sequencing.

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