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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — results render inline in chat rather than as a data payload — but says nothing about pagination, card counts, or card-level filtering.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and its clarifying examples come before any other information.

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 one-parameter, read-only browse tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is fetched and how it is surfaced. It stops just short of noting whether all cards are returned at once or how a large report's cards are delivered.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself noting the id comes from path_tool_run or build_status. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb (Browse) and resource (a delivered report's individual cards), and the parenthetical '(charts, tables, insights)' concretely defines what a card is. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings such as reports_view or reports_list.

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?

The word 'delivered' hints that a report must already exist, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite on obtaining a processing_id, and no routing advice versus reports_view/reports_list. Usage is left entirely to inference.

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