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

Annotations cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: whole-replacement semantics of the definition, the version-match requirement for update, and the conditional fact that editors also receive an unpublished draft. It does not cover rate limits or error/failure behavior, so it stops short of 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?

The workflow warning is front-loaded, which is good, but the second paragraph largely restates the first ('JSON definition, visibility, your access, its version'), repeating content rather than earning space. The duplication is small but costs a point.

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, return values need no explanation, and the description supplies the workflow hook (read-before-update), permission-scoped payload, and version semantics. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly, though nothing is said about failure modes.

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%, so id, merchant_id, and conversation_id are already fully documented in the schema, including who may use merchant_id and the conversation_id protocol. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get a custom report's JSON definition, visibility, your access and its version') and enumerates exactly what comes back. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_reports, run_report, preview_report, and update_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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Read it before update_report' with the reason (definition is replaced whole, version must match). This names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it, leaving nothing to inference.

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