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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, but the description adds real value beyond them: it states what is excluded (private notes, unmodeled payload fields), the required scope (tickets:read), and the side-effect guarantee (creates no access).

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and content scope, then the workflow hint, then the permission/effect note. No 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?

For a single-parameter, read-only preview with no output schema, the description conveys the shape of the returned projection and the permission requirement well. The only gap is that the required snapshot_id parameter is left entirely unexplained.

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 0% and the sole parameter snapshot_id is undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description does not compensate at all, leaving the agent to infer what a snapshot_id is and where to obtain it.

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 precise verb (preview) and resource (the exact public projection of an owned saved report) and enumerates the fields the projection contains. An agent can distinguish this from create_portfolio_report_share and get_portfolio_report_share without opening a 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?

"Review this projection before requesting a link" gives clear sequencing context relative to the create-a-share flow, and "creates no access" reinforces that this is a pre-flight check. It never names an alternative sibling tool explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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