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

With all annotation hints false, the description carries the burden and discloses the key side effect: 'Saves a downloadable report artifact.' It also notes the operation spans the complete authorized result set, but it does not elaborate on persistence, duplicate artifacts, or rate limits.

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 the core purpose first, side effect second, and alternative third. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant wording.

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 presence of an output schema covers return-value details, and the description covers purpose, side effect, and large-report routing. It could add a bit more about how the downloadable artifact is returned, but that is likely covered by the output schema.

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 93%, so the schema already documents the parameters well. The description's 'including website and asset feedback' loosely maps to the source parameter, but adds little beyond the structured fields.

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 ('Calculate') and resource ('feedback totals and breakdowns'), and distinguishes the tool from search/list/export siblings by emphasizing aggregation and the 'complete authorized result set' including website and asset feedback. This makes the tool's unique role clear.

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 explicitly names the alternative, start_task, and states the condition for using it: large reports. This gives an agent a clear routing rule without needing to inspect sibling definitions.

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