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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing the return artifacts (temporary link plus raw HTML) and the 24-hour link expiry. That expiry is a genuinely actionable behavioral trait an agent cannot get from structured fields. It stops short of noting whether link generation is metered or what happens on repeated calls, which keeps it at 4.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the plan requirement and then the core artifact description. Every sentence carries information; the only slightly awkward element is that 'Unlimited plan' appears as a bare fragment without explanation of what happens on other plans.

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 so well by naming both the link and the HTML and their expiry. Combined with complete schema coverage for all three parameters, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only the sibling routing gap remains.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the period enum and the manager-account role of login_customer_id. The description mentions the report's contents but adds no explicit semantics about how 'period' scopes those numbers or when login_customer_id is needed. Baseline 3.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'client report drawn as a one-page HTML dashboard' with the exact contents named (wasted spend, spend per day, zero-result searches). This is clearly distinct from client_report only by implication — the description never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling of that near-identical name, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is for delivering a presentable client-facing artifact. But there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over client_report, account_overview, or find_wasted_spend, and no prerequisites stated beyond the 'Unlimited plan' note.

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