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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is set. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the free-tier refresh behavior ('never refreshes'), the metric-interpretation rule ('missing metrics are unknown, not zero'), and a security posture for embedded post text. No return-format detail, but that is covered by the output schema.

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, each carrying distinct information (scope, refresh behavior, metric semantics, untrusted data) and front-loaded with the core purpose. No filler or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the annotation set covers safety. The description adds freshness, semantic and security context, making it largely complete except for the undocumented brandId parameter.

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 single parameter brandId has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden, yet it never mentions brandId, its format, or what a valid brand id is. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate and 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 and resource ('Read saved X public reports') plus the ancillary data returned (request status, credit price, workspace balance). The word 'saved' implicitly separates it from the sibling request_x_report, but the description never names the alternative, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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 phrase 'Free: never refreshes' implies this reads cached/existing reports rather than triggering a new fetch, which hints at when to use it over request_x_report, but the tool is never named and no explicit when/when-not rule is given. Usage must be inferred.

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