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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does a lot: it discloses what each report returns (open-work composition, verdict buckets, win rate, interventions under review) and that rows carry baseline + post snapshots with computed deltas when closed. It stops short of stating read-only safety, permissions, or rate limits, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

It is dense but front-loaded with the core statement and the single-source-of-truth claim, then organized by report mode. A couple of parenthetical asides are heavy, but nearly every clause earns its place.

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?

Given a 10-parameter, no-required, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description supplies enough to call it correctly (mode selection, insightId linkage, returned content). It does not spell out the full row shape or pagination, but those are minor given the parameter-level guidance already provided.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning beyond the schema: it interprets the report enum in plain language and gives the intent of insightId ('fixes prompted by a specific finding'). The remaining filters are left to the schema, which already documents them.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('List interventions... and report their measured outcomes') and explicitly positions itself against the sibling insights tools ('This is the SINGLE source of truth for did it work — insights never carry a verdict'). An agent can distinguish it from get_insights/save_insights without opening any 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance per mode: report:'status' for 'where did we get to?' / session start, 'list' for full rows, 'outcomes' for worked vs didn't, and insightId to answer 'how did the fix(es) for this finding turn out?'. Scenarios are mapped to parameters concretely.

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