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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only report ('report', 'site-facing') but does not disclose permissions, side effects, rate limits, or whether any state is modified.

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?

It is a single sentence fragment, so it is short, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication; key information is missing.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is far too sparse for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It never states what the report contains, how to supply 'task', or what a COLLATERAL-BLOCKED verdict means in this context.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain either required parameter ('site', 'task'). 'Site-facing' hints at the site parameter but does not define it, and 'task' is entirely unaddressed.

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 identifies the resource as a 'collateral report' and adds a condition ('COLLATERAL-BLOCKED verdict') and audience ('site-facing'), but it uses a noun phrase with no action verb (generate? fetch?). It does not differentiate from siblings like assemble_evidence or get_receipt.

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 'for a COLLATERAL-BLOCKED verdict' implies the tool is used in that verdict context, giving a minimal use condition. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no guidance on prerequisites.

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