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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope detail about what is reported (load times, coverage limitations, last-load changes) but says nothing about whether figures are cached vs. live, refresh frequency, or cost of calling — meaningful gaps for a currency-checking tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the contents, followed by the extra facet (counts by type, last-load changes) and then the purpose. The enumerated list is dense but every element is a distinct data point an agent needs to decide relevance.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return content, and it does so by enumerating source files, dates, load times, row counts, coverage limits and per-type counts. What's missing is the response shape (single object vs. per-source sections) and freshness semantics, so it is nearly but not fully complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema leaves nothing to explain and the description correctly spends no space on arguments. Baseline 4 applies; there is no parameter-related information an agent is missing.

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 concrete verb ('Report') plus a precise resource set (source file names, dates, load times, row counts, coverage limitations) across three data domains. This is clearly diagnostics/metadata, which is distinctly different from every sibling (get_opportunity, search_*, summarize_opportunities), though it never explicitly names an alternative.

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?

'Use it to judge how current results are' gives a clear use context, but there is no 'when not to use' and no explicit routing away from the search/summarize siblings. An agent can infer usage, but the boundary cases (e.g., calling this before vs. after a search) are left to it.

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