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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it only conveys format and intended audience, not behavioral traits such as read-only nature, data sources, or side effects. It does not disclose what the report contains or any important behavioral details.

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 a single concise sentence with no fluff. It uses an em dash to efficiently explain the use case. However, it is somewhat ambiguous due to the reference to 'the same report,' so it does not earn a 5.

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 tool with one parameter and no annotations, the description is too vague. It does not explain what the report contains, how to interpret the markdown, or any prerequisites such as consent or existing health data. It relies heavily on the reader understanding 'the same report' and the business context.

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 schema has one parameter businessId with zero description coverage (0%). The description does not mention the parameter at all, providing no additional meaning beyond the parameter name. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema description.

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 says 'The same report as markdown' without identifying what report, relying on the tool name for context. It is not a tautology since it adds format and intended use, but it lacks an explicit verb and resource. It vaguely distinguishes from siblings by noting it is the markdown form, but does not name the sibling.

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 implies usage when a markdown version of a business health report is needed, specifically for handing to a website maintainer. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_business_health, nor does it provide exclusions or name alternatives. The usage is implied rather than clear.

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