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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares the operation is free, 'never signs or charges', requires the original private read token, and that reports expire after seven days. These are genuine side-effect, auth, and lifecycle disclosures. It stops short of describing what comes back or any rate/pagination behavior.

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, purpose front-loaded, then parameter identity, cost/safety, and expiry. Every sentence carries distinct information (what, which key, no charge, token + TTL) with no repetition or filler.

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?

For a 2-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety semantics, auth requirement, and expiry well. The notable gap is that with no output schema it does not say what the 'report' contains or what a read returns, leaving return-value expectations unset.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it clarifies idempotency_key must be the ORIGINAL key and not the report_id UUID, and that read_token is the original private read token. It adds no constraint details (16-64 pattern on the key, 32-128 length on the token), so the schema's format rules remain undocumented in prose.

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 ('Read or reconcile the original private report for a purchase'), scoping it to purchased reports and to the original/private variant. An agent can tell exactly what object is being acted on without opening the schema, and the sibling tools (enroll/verify/preflight) operate on entirely different resources, so no sibling collision exists.

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: it is for reading/reconciling an already-purchased report, and it warns 'If state is uncertain do not pay again,' which steers the agent away from a re-payment path. However, it never names an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use-this condition, so routing guidance is only partial.

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