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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description corroborates this and adds material context the annotations do not carry — the required environment credential and where a publisher obtains it. It stops short of describing rate limits, pagination, or returned shape, so it is good but not exhaustive.

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, front-loaded with the verb, read-only nature, and credential requirement before the report-type list. The trailing enumeration is dense but earns its place by signalling coverage; no filler sentences.

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 an 8-parameter read-only report tool with no output schema, the description supplies auth prerequisites, read-only confirmation, and full report-type coverage. The only meaningful gap is that the default outputFormat of markdown (and the available return formats) is never mentioned.

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 88%, so nearly every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the directBidder requirement and date formats. The description's reportType enumeration and bidder note largely restate the enum, adding minimal meaning beyond structured fields. Baseline 3 applies for high coverage.

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+resource ("Fetch a Sulvo report") and immediately scopes it as read-only, then enumerates the eight report types it covers. This separates it from write-oriented siblings like save_sulvo_advanced_report and list_sulvo_advanced_reports, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives a prerequisite (SULVO_API_KEY, with where to generate it) and notes that directBidder is required for direct-bidder-analysis, which is useful usage context. However it never states when to pick this tool over siblings such as list_sulvo_advanced_reports or get_sulvo_revenue_onboarding_status, so routing is left to inference.

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