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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that the result is live JSON returned inline, which helps an agent understand the response and that no file is produced. It stops short of describing response shape or potential performance characteristics, but this is not a major gap.

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 no filler. The core purpose and output format are front-loaded, and the sibling alternative is stated efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has seven parameters and nine report variants, but the schema covers all parameters thoroughly. The description clearly distinguishes this tool from export_report and states the output mode. It could be slightly more explicit about what the JSON return contains for different report kinds, but given the schema's richness, this is a minor omission.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter already having a descriptive comment and constraints. The description only mentions a 'date range' generically and does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Produce') and resource ('vokse report'), and immediately clarifies the output form ('return the live JSON inline'). It distinguishes this tool from the sibling export_report by explicitly naming that alternative, so there is no ambiguity about which tool to choose.

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 description gives direct selection guidance: use this when you want a report as inline JSON, and use export_report when you need a downloadable file. This explicit when/when-not/alternative is exactly what an agent needs to route correctly.

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