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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the Unlimited plan requirement and the fact that the output is a polished, client-safe document designed to be forwarded without editing. It does not discuss rate limits or return format, but the added behavioral context is meaningful.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, and each contributes relevant information about plan, audience, and intended forwarding use. It is slightly odd to front-load the 'Unlimited plan' fragment before stating what the tool does, but the definition is otherwise tight.

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?

The tool is read-only, has no output schema, and its three parameters are fully specified, so much of the calling mechanics are covered. However, with many sibling reporting tools, the description never clarifies what content the report contains or how it differs from client_dashboard, which is a meaningful gap for an agent choosing between them.

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 100%, with period, customer_id, and login_customer_id fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 title and description convey that this produces a client-facing, plain-language version of an audit, and 'made to be forwarded as is' distinguishes it from internal-facing siblings. However, it never names the actual report resource or what data it covers, and the phrase 'The same audit' has no clear antecedent. Purpose is implied rather than stated with a specific verb and resource.

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?

'Unlimited plan' signals a plan prerequisite and 'forwarded as is' implies the client-facing use case. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to siblings like client_dashboard or account_overview, and no exclusions. Usage is only implied.

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