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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real context beyond them: the report is a stale generated snapshot rather than fresh analysis, it does not require a blockId, and it prescribes handling of the available=false state.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then short declarative sentences covering scope, staleness, exclusions, and the failure path. No filler sentences; each clause adds distinct 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers content, usage, staleness semantics, and the available=false fallback. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies the identifier semantics indirectly by stating a blockId is not required, but adds nothing about the testId format or validation beyond what the schema pattern shows.

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 and resource ('Read the saved report for the whole test') and then enumerates the contents (introduction, study goals, task summaries, key findings, quotes, A/B comparison), which lets an agent distinguish it from sibling summary/insight tools without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('Use when asked about the report or its conclusions'), explicit when-not ('Does not generate or refresh a report'), and names the alternative behavior ('use evidence tools for analysis instead') for the no-report case.

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