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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the content structure of the report, which is useful context, but does not disclose other behavioral aspects like performance implications or whether it requires prior setup. Since annotations carry most of the burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key output components and avoids redundancy. Every word adds value, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return content. It covers the major sections an agent would need to know. However, it does not mention optional banner parameters or how they influence the report, but since the schema documents those, the description is sufficiently complete for this tool.

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 all parameters are already documented with their types and meaning. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 the tool returns the full Insights report and enumerates its contents (methodology, banner columns, per-question findings with significance flags, and comparison vs a wave). This is a specific verb+resource and clearly differentiates from siblings like get_crosstab or run_insights_function, which have narrower scopes.

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 this is the comprehensive report tool but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like get_ai_results_summary or run_insights_function, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is only inferred from the word 'full'.

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