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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds the timing link to path_resolver, and the schema text adds genuinely useful behavior (a deleted or non-owned report is refused, re-checked at execution), but that guarantee lives in the schema rather than the main description.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no padding. The trailing 'Time: as path_resolver quotes' is terse to the point of being cryptic, which costs a point.

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?

With annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, the essentials are covered, and no output schema means return values need not be explained. What remains thin is routing guidance against the crowded path_* sibling set and any indication of what a refusal looks like to the caller.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, and the description's 'this question on this data' maps loosely to objective and dataset_ref. It adds no meaning beyond the schema for resolution_id, so the baseline of 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 verb-and-resource pair is concrete: it hands back a previously delivered report for a given question on given data, which reads distinctly from generating a new answer. It references 'path_resolver' in the timing clause, implying it is downstream of that sibling's suggestion, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with path_answer, path_rerun, or path_bespoke.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'already delivered' plus the reference to path_resolver's quote suggests it applies when a prior report exists and has been suggested. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this over path_answer or path_rerun, and no exclusions.

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