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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the two most important traits: output is a draft (generated preview, not committed) and it is read-only with no side effects ('sends nothing'). It does not cover permissions, latency, or whether it depends on existing rule/action data, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and window, then itemizes the report contents, closing with the read-only guarantee. Every clause carries information; 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description effectively summarizes what the report returns (the enumerated sections), and there are no parameters or annotations to reconcile. Nothing an agent needs to call a zero-arg read-only report tool is missing.

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 baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the implicit fixed 7-day window, which it already states.

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 (draft) plus resource (report of the last 7 days) with the exact contents enumerated — actions checked, auto-approval counts, escalations, top ask kinds, rule suggestions. That content list makes it unmistakable against siblings like check_action, get_decision, and get_rules without needing to consult their schemas.

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 7-day window and report contents imply when it applies, but no sibling is named and there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance. An agent must infer that this is the overview tool rather than the per-decision tools.

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