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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states 'Read-only' and lists the specific state information returned, preempting any assumption of side effects. However, it does not describe the output structure in detail (e.g., exact field names or formats), which a fully transparent description might, but the listed items suffice for most purposes.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and enumerates the returned data; the second adds a critical usage exclusion. Every word earns its place, and the structure is highly scannable.

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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description lists every major piece of state returned (on/off, review mode, posts/week, target-account count, pause reason, batch summary), giving the agent a clear expectation. It also provides context on when to avoid using it. The only minor gap is the absence of an explicit example of the batch summary format, but for a status getter this is adequate.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema description coverage is effectively 100% and the baseline is 3. The description does not need to explain parameters because there are none; it appropriately focuses on output semantics instead. No additional parameter detail is required.

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 verb 'report' and enumerates exactly what it reports: on/off state, review mode, posts per week, target-account count, pause reason, and batch summary. It explicitly says 'Use ONLY' and contrasts with related tools, making it unambiguous and distinct from siblings like generate/adjust/approve/turn-on.

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 description provides explicit when-to-use ('Use ONLY to report Autopilot's state') and when-not-to-use guidelines ('Do NOT call it before generate/adjust/approve/turn-on — those tools resolve the current week themselves'), naming the alternatives and the rationale. This gives the agent clear routing.

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