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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description is not obligated to restate the safety profile, and instead adds genuine value: the required permission scope, the exact shape of the returned payload, and explicitly what is NOT returned (no listing URLs, no observed values). It also documents the authorization_required outcome with a connect URL, which an agent needs in order to recover from a failed call.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the payload contents and exclusions are stated before the error behavior. The auth prerequisite leads, which is slightly less useful up front than leading with what the tool returns, but it is defensible.

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 no output schema, the description capably substitutes by enumerating the returned fields, the deliberate omissions, and the error envelope. The one meaningful hole is the unresolved subject_id semantics for a tool that declares zero required parameters.

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% for the single subject_id parameter, and the description mentions 'the subject' only in passing as part of the permission requirement. It never explains what subject_id identifies, whether it can be omitted (it is not required), or whether it defaults to the caller's own subject.

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 uses a specific verb+resource combination: it returns the exposure report summary the dashboard shows, and it enumerates the exact per-site fields (site, status, what it exposes, guide link). This is more concrete than a vague 'gets a report', though it never names a sibling to distinguish itself from tools like get_service_overview or get_case_status.

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 states prerequisites (OAuth plus the 'share_results' permission) and the failure mode, but gives no guidance on when to pick this tool over the many sibling read tools such as get_case_status or get_service_overview. An agent must infer the choice from the tool name alone.

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