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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring the safety profile, the description adds meaningful context by spelling out the report contents (last write time, row count, freshness policy). It does not cover error cases or how the freshness policy is evaluated, but for a read-only report tool this is solid added value.

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 that leads with the core action and then enumerates outputs. It is slightly dense with stacked clauses (the freshness-policy definition), but every clause carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, so describing the returned fields is essential, and the description does this well. Annotations cover the read-only nature. Minor gaps: no note on behavior when no data exists or how the policy verdict is formatted.

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 description coverage is 100% and both optional parameters are documented in the schema, including the 'omit' defaults. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('an entity's data'), then enumerates the three outputs: last write time, row count, and declared freshness policy. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like refresh, query, and describe_entity, which perform different operations.

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 phrase 'whether figures are current enough to act on' implies the decision context, but the description never states when to call this versus known_gaps, query, or refresh, nor does it name an alternative or prerequisite. Usage is only implied.

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