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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-annotation fact — 'Reading a report uses none of the reader's reports' — which is a quota/credit disclosure an agent would otherwise have to discover, plus a note on authorship of the content.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, which is good. However, the long enumerated list of return fields (date, main point, questions, findings, next steps, companies, link) is verbose and redundant given an output schema exists, diluting the signal.

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 read tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, id provenance, and the quota implication. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing; the field enumeration is surplus rather than necessary.

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 a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents report_id and even that a link is accepted. The description restates this verbatim rather than adding format or edge-case detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('see how far a report has got', 'read a ready report') and covers both lifecycle states (in-progress status vs. finished report). It names the sibling tools (check_company, list_reports) only as id sources rather than as alternatives to avoid, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

It clearly frames two use cases — checking progress/findings on an in-flight report and reading a finished one — and tells the agent where the report_id comes from (check_company, list_reports, or the report's link). No explicit exclusion is given, but the routing context is concrete enough to act on.

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