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

Annotations already cover read-only, closed-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds ordering (pinned first), conditional field presence (address only when the company has Reports pages), and a partial-visibility rule with hidden_blocks counting omitted blocks. That is meaningful disclosure beyond annotations; only auth/permission requirements for viewing sources are unstated.

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?

Effectively one long sentence, but it is front-loaded with the core fact (reports for this company, pinned first) and every clause carries information. The density makes it slightly harder to scan than a structured multi-sentence form would.

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 output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does enumerate the fields (id, title, description, address, creator, blocks) plus the hidden_blocks behavior. The block structure is only described as 'exactly as saved,' leaving the shape of blocks somewhat opaque, and no statement is made about result limits.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% and empty.

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 (the reports saved for this company) and immediately scopes the result set and ordering ('pinned first'). An agent can distinguish it from save_report, preview_report, and run_report without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the follow-up action — edit and re-save via save_report using the returned report_id — which is genuinely useful context. It stops short of saying when to choose this versus preview_report or run_report, so alternatives are only implied.

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