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

Annotations already disclose non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: default recipient behavior, a confirmation gate for external recipients, and a plan prerequisite.

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?

It is four short sentences with the purpose front-loaded first, followed by key constraints. Every sentence adds a meaningful operational rule without 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a 34-parameter tool, the description is far too sparse: it omits report configuration, date range options, dry_run behavior, rule/action fields, and most other invocation details.

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?

There are 34 parameters with 0% schema description coverage. The description only clarifies email_to and confirm semantics, leaving the other 32 parameters opaque and forcing the agent to guess their purpose.

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 states a specific verb and resource: generate a Kampalo performance report PDF and email it. The emailing step distinguishes it from sibling report-generation tools, so an agent can tell what makes this tool unique.

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?

It gives clear usage conditions: default to the signed-in user's email, require confirm=true for other email_to recipients, and require a plan with scheduled reports. It does not explicitly compare with sibling tools, but the operating context is clear.

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