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

Annotations declare it is not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive, but say nothing about cost or limits. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: it is free, capped at three uses within 30 days of ordering, and no payment is required — real quota and billing context an agent could not infer from the annotations.

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 key constraint and the core behavior, but the last sentence ('This tool is free; no payment is required') restates the opening 'Free' clause, wasting space on a duplicate rather than adding 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, the description need not explain return values, and it correctly focuses on purpose, quota, and outcome. For a one-parameter tool with annotations, this is essentially complete; only explicit sibling routing is absent.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single report_id parameter is fully documented in the schema as 'the report_id of a finished report'. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Re-runs every page of a finished report' names the action and the target precisely, and the 'after fixing / confirm a fix worked' framing separates it from reach_report (create) and reach_report_status (poll). An agent can select it without opening the 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?

The trigger condition is clear: run this after a fix to confirm it worked on a finished report. The quota ('up to three times within 30 days of ordering') implicitly bounds when it can be used. It does not explicitly name alternative tools such as reach_report_status for checking progress, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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