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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: 'Read-only; sends nothing' explicitly rules out side effects, which matters for a tool named 'report' that an agent might otherwise fear sends email. It also discloses tier-dependent behavior (Pro vs free output). Missing only ancillary traits like whether the draft is persisted or returned.

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 front-loaded sentence: purpose first, contents second via a compact colon list, safety caveat last. Every clause earns its place with no padding.

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?

For a zero-param, no-output-schema tool the description covers scope, content, tier behavior, and side-effect profile. The only gap is what the returned draft actually looks like or where it goes, which the absence of an output schema leaves slightly open.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description adds the implicit 'last 7 days' window as the fixed scope.

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 and resource ('Draft a plain-English report of the last 7 days') and enumerates the report's contents (stalled tasks, nudges, reassigns), which implicitly separates it from the nudge_log sibling. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast itself with any sibling tool, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 description implies when the tool is useful (a weekly roll-up of the last 7 days) and notes the Pro/free tier difference in what it reports. It never says when to prefer this over nudge_log or scan_handoffs, nor states any prerequisites, so usage guidance remains implicit.

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