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

Annotations cover safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). Description adds valuable behavioral context: specifies exact return fields (id, report_type, status, title, summary) compensating for lack of output schema, and discloses cost ('Free'). Could improve by mentioning pagination defaults or rate limits.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: sentence 1 defines action, sentence 2 defines return value, sentence 3 defines related workflow. Front-loaded with the core verb. Every word 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?

Strong coverage given no output schema exists: describes return structure via text. Mentions sibling tools for workflow completeness. Minor gap: doesn't explicitly state all parameters are optional (though implied by 'optional status filter' and schema).

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 baseline is 3. Description maps parameters to concepts ('pagination' for limit/offset, 'optional status filter' for status) but doesn't add semantic details beyond schema (e.g., doesn't explain valid status values or pagination strategy).

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 specific verb (List) + resource (user's generated CeeVee reports) + scope (with pagination and status filter). Clearly distinguishes from siblings ceevee_get_report and ceevee_download_report by explaining this returns summaries while siblings handle details/downloads.

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?

Explicitly defines the workflow: use this tool to get report IDs, then use ceevee_get_report for details or ceevee_download_report for PDFs. The 'Free' mention adds usage context regarding cost constraints.

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