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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description discloses gating behavior ('releases the report only after the organizer requests it'), the exact failure mode ('not-ready error'), and an auth requirement ('Needs the user's Cotlet API key with access to this app'). It even describes the return format as titled sections, which is valuable since there is no output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and generally efficient, but the first two sentences restate the same idea ('post-event report... as text sections' / 'Returns the post-event report... as titled sections'). Minor redundancy keeps it from a 5.

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 adequately (titled sections with figures), plus preconditions, error behavior, and auth. It doesn't mention pagination or section list discovery, but for a simple two-parameter read tool it is essentially complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by explaining how to use the section parameter ('Pass section to read one part, for example Sponsors and exhibitors'). The concrete example value goes beyond the schema's generic 'Section title as shown in the report.'

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 names a specific verb-plus-resource ('get the post-event report of one finished event') and states the return shape ('titled sections with their figures'). It clearly distinguishes this report-retrieval tool from sibling retrieval tools like whova_list_events or whova_list_sessions by scoping it to a single finished event's report.

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?

It gives strong preconditions: the report is only 'available after the event ends' and the organizer must request it 'under Tools > Report.' It doesn't name an explicit alternative/sibling to route to when the tool fails, so it stops short of a 5, but the when-to-use context is clear.

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