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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive; the description adds two important behaviors beyond that: idempotency (an existing checklist is returned unchanged) and asynchronous background execution. These are substantive and directly influence how an agent should call the tool. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by the critical idempotency and async behavior, then explicit polling endpoints. Every sentence adds decision-relevant 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?

Given one parameter, an output schema, and annotations that already cover the safety profile, the description provides everything needed to invoke the tool correctly: what it does, that it is idempotent, that it runs asynchronously, and where to check status. The inclusion of two polling tool names removes ambiguity about next steps. Nothing required for correct use is missing.

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 one required report_id with no description, so schema coverage is 0%. The description does connect the parameter to 'a report,' giving minimal semantic context, and the parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description does not specify the ID's format, source, or constraints. For a single obvious parameter this is adequate but not rich.

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 opens with the specific action 'Generate' and the exact resource: a make/model-specific pre-buy diligence checklist for a report. It also adds meaningful specificity by noting that the research is grounded in real ADs/STCs. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_diligence_checklist, add_diligence_item, and delete_diligence_item.

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 provides clear operational usage: generation runs in the background)Skip and the agent should poll get_diligence_checklist or get_diligence_progress for status. It also notes idempotency, which helps the agent know that calling twice is safe. It does not explicitly list exclusions, but the async and polling guidance gives strong context for when and how to use this tool.

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