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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful non-annotation context: reports are generated weekly on Mondays, require a paid plan, are ordered newest first, and expose a concise set of fields. It does not discuss pagination, empty-result behavior, or access errors, so it falls short of fully rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it states what the reports are, notes ordering and fields, and ends with the relevant alternative in one additional sentence. There is no wasted text.

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 simple list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it names the returned fields and ordering and explains that get_report is for reading one report. The remaining gap is the unexplained project parameter, which is material because the schema does not describe it.

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 one parameter, project, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain what the parameter means, whether it is optional, or what form it should take. The title hints that reports belong to a project, but this is not developed enough to compensate for the schema gap.

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 specifies the resource (weekly reports), cadence (every Monday), scope (paid plans), ordering (newest first), and returned fields (week, one-line summary, status). It also distinguishes the list operation from the detail operation by directing the agent to get_report for a single report.

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 indicates the context in which reports exist (weekly reports on paid plans) and explicitly routes single-report reads to get_report. It does not spell out when-not to use the tool or how optional project scoping affects the call, but the listing-versus-detail distinction is clear.

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