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

Annotations already declare the write/idempotent/non-destructive/open-world profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond them: it snapshots into a per-tenant catalog file and returns a diff (added/removed/renamed) against the prior snapshot, which is meaningful behavioral disclosure for a mutation.

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 core action and followed by the return behavior and the trigger condition. No filler.

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 return value need not be documented, and the description nonetheless characterizes the diff. For a zero-parameter tool the definition is essentially complete, though it omits any note on required permissions or scope of the catalog write.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Schema coverage is 100% and there is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs.

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 (Snapshot) and precise resources (/Reports + /ReportWriterReports) and the destination (per-tenant catalog file). This clearly distinguishes it from list_reports (reads the catalog) and run_report (executes a report).

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 an explicit trigger: 'Run after RM admins add or rename reports.' It establishes clear context for invocation but names no alternative tool and offers no when-not-to-use condition.

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