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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return payload well (digest plus named checks), but says nothing about failure behavior when the report is pending, permissions, or whether results are cached/immutable.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with a compact, informative enumeration; every element adds signal. The parenthetical list is long but each entry is meaningful.

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 content list is valuable and needed, but the definition omits the report_id contract and the not-ready path, both of which an agent must know to invoke this correctly.

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 0% for the single required report_id, and the description never explains its format or where the agent obtains it (presumably from create_test_address or wait_for_report). With zero structured documentation, the description should have compensated and does not.

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 (fetch) and resource (finished report) with an explicit enumeration of returned sections that makes its scope concrete. It distinguishes itself from wait_for_report only implicitly via the word 'finished'.

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?

'Finished report' implies it should be called only after completion, which hints at the wait_for_report sibling, but no alternative or precondition is stated explicitly. Nothing tells the agent what to do if the report is not yet finished.

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