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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does state the key behavioral trait: 'Read-only; sends nothing,' which tells the agent this is a pure, side-effect-free read. It doesn't mention generation cost, latency, or narrowing options, but for a zero-param read tool the safety disclosure is the material one.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler: the deliverable and its scope lead, the safety disclaimer and usage instruction follow. 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming exactly what the report contains (runs, loops caught, wasted repeat steps, worst offenders) and its format (plain-English). Nothing an agent needs in order to call and relay this 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. The description correctly introduces no parameter claims, and the parenthetical '(or IP)' only hints at implicit key resolution rather than describing an input field.

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 a plain-English report') plus scope ('last 7 days ... for your key (or IP)') and an enumerated content list (runs, loops caught, wasted repeat steps, worst offenders). The '[loop-breaker]' domain tag cleanly separates it from the other *_weekly_report siblings (approve_, budget_, memory_), so an agent can route correctly 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?

'Show it to your user' gives a downstream usage instruction, and the 7-day window implies the reporting context. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over loop_loop_status or loop_check_step, and no exclusion conditions — usage is implied rather than stated.

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