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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses auth/permission requirements, exact returned fields, explicit exclusions (no listing URLs or observed values), and the error response with a connect URL. This is unusually thorough.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: prerequisites, return content, exclusions, and error behavior each get a concise clause. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The return shape and error behavior are fully described, which is valuable given no output schema. However, the single parameter is not explained, and the 'my report' title combined with an optional-looking schema leaves doubt about whether and how to pass subject_id.

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?

The schema has one parameter, subject_id, with 0% description coverage, and the description never states that subject_id identifies the subject whose report is returned. It mentions 'for the subject' only in the auth context, leaving the parameter's role and optionality ambiguous.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the report summary the dashboard shows' followed by concrete content (status, counts, per-site findings). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_case_status or get_service_overview by focusing on the exposure report summary.

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 gives clear prerequisites (OAuth and the 'share_results' permission) and explains the authorization_required fallback, which tells an agent when the call cannot succeed. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context makes the intended use clear.

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