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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on pagination, result volume, ordering, or whether an empty list is possible, leaving the non-idempotent, open-world behavior unexplained.

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 text is a single short phrase with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than concise. Brevity here comes at the cost of all information, not from efficient editing.

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?

Although the tool is simple (no parameters, no nested objects), there is no output schema, so the description should explain what a progression report list contains or how results are shaped. It also fails to position the tool among ~48 siblings, leaving the definition incomplete for correct selection.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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?

"List progression reports" restates the tool name almost verbatim, adding no scope, filter, or resource detail. With siblings like list_reports, list_player_reports, and list_event_reports present, an agent cannot tell from this text what distinguishes a progression report list from any other list tool.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to alternatives such as get_progression_report for a single report or list_reports for the general list. The agent must infer everything from the name alone.

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