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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the description carries a lighter burden. Still, the description adds nothing beyond them: no indication of what a retention report contains, how many are returned, whether results are paged, or what fields would feed get_retention_report.

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 single phrase is front-loaded and free of padding, so it isn't verbose. But its brevity is a product of under-specification rather than economy, so it earns only a middling score.

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 simple no-param lister with no output schema, an agent still needs to know what a retention report is and how it relates to get_retention_report. With no output schema to explain return values, the description should have covered at least the shape or purpose of what comes back, and it does not.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline for a 0-param tool is 4. The description does not misrepresent the call signature.

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 retention reports" essentially restates the tool name list_retention_reports, giving the verb and resource but nothing an agent couldn't infer from the identifier. It does not distinguish this from get_retention_report (singular) or list_reports, both of which sit among the siblings.

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 and no mention of alternatives. The sibling set contains get_retention_report and generic list_reports, so the agent is left to guess whether this is the right entry point, yet the description gives no selection criteria or exclusions.

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