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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the tool renders the live page in the conversation and shows client-facing layout aspects. Minor gaps remain around whether the preview is real-time or could be stale, but the added rendering context is meaningful.

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?

Two sentences with zero wasted words. The core function is front-loaded in sentence one, and sentence two earns its place by providing usage timing, concrete layout-check examples, and the distinguishing comparison to list_widgets.

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 the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, full schema coverage, output schema present, safety annotations provided), the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, when to reach for it, and what visual details it uniquely surfaces — nothing essential is missing.

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% — report_id is documented with its type and source ('Report ID (from list_reports)'). The description itself does not add parameter-level meaning, but under high schema coverage the baseline of 3 applies and the schema carries the burden adequately.

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 action ('Show a report as the client sees it'), a specific resource (report), and a distinctive scope (live page rendered in the conversation). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like list_widgets and get_report by emphasizing the client-facing visual rendering.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this after building or changing one, and to check layout.' It also names the alternative (list_widgets) and explains why layout issues like overlapping widgets, spacing, cut-off headings, and branding are only visible here, giving a concrete when-not-to-use boundary.

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