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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing cost ("Free") and that the call "never starts work" — exactly the kind of detail an agent needs before deciding to probe first.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the scope clause is front-loaded ahead of the cost and ordering notes. Every sentence carries an actionable fact.

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?

Return values need not be explained since an output schema exists, and the annotations carry the safety profile. What an agent needs to decide to call it — cost, side-effect-free, ordering before report requests — is present; only the brandId parameter is left untouched.

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 single required parameter brandId is not mentioned anywhere in the description. The phrase "for every connected channel" hints that scope is brand-bound, but adds no meaning about what brandId is, its format, or where to obtain it. With low coverage the description should compensate and it does not.

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 specific verb (check) and enumerates the resources inspected: reporting support, saved X reports, credit prices, refresh permission, scoped to every connected channel. It is distinguishable from request_x_report/get_x_report by positioning itself as the pre-flight capability probe rather than a report generator, though it never names those siblings outright.

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?

"Read this before requesting fresh reports" gives explicit sequencing guidance, and "Free; never starts work" rules out cost concerns that would otherwise make an agent hesitate. It stops short of naming which request tool (request_x_report vs request_channel_report) follows, so the routing is implied rather than explicit.

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