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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns (workflow, dashboard menu, methodology notes) and its role as an entry point ('Read this first'). It does not mention side effects (none expected) or exhaustive edge cases, but for a read-only guidance tool, it provides sufficient behavioral context.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with 'Read this first.' It packs substantial detail into the second sentence without redundancy. Every phrase earns its place by listing specific content areas and the intended usage timing.

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 description fully covers what an agent needs to know: when to call it, what it returns (workflow per angle, dashboard structure, methodology), and that it should precede tool selection. It complements the output schema without repeating schema details. For a zero-parameter tool, this is 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed since the schema is empty and 100% covered.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Returns the long-report workflow' with specific details about what it contains (tool combinations, dashboard structure, methodology). It identifies the resource as 'long-report' which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'guidelines_for_a_short_report' and other report tools.

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?

The description gives clear usage guidance: 'Read this first for an in-depth report' and 'Call this before guessing at tool use.' This explicitly tells the agent when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the sibling name implies the short-report counterpart.

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