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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description's marginal duty is to add operational context. It adds the useful fact that this bundle is the same context the suggestion pipeline reasons over, but says nothing about payload size, latency, or whether the breakdowns are bounded — meaningful for what is billed as a 'full' bundle. Adequate but not rich beyond the annotations.

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 content inventory is front-loaded in the first clause, with the comparative note about get_report trailing it in a single secondary sentence. There is no filler, though the second sentence is dense and slightly hard to parse on a first read.

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 burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so by enumerating the five evidence categories. The only real gap is that it doesn't characterize volume or format of those breakdowns, which matters for a tool described as a 'full' bundle.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and that schema description already explains the UUID format and explicitly warns that list_opportunities/list_reports ids go to get_report instead. The prose adds no further meaning about issue_id, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb-and-resource framing ('Full evidence bundle for one issue') and then enumerates the contents: metrics, impact, root cause, traffic source and device breakdowns, and user-path analysis. It also distinguishes this from get_report by pointing at the suggestion block that lives there, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening schemas.

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 a partial usage signal by saying the agent can 'derive recommendations yourself or compare with the suggestion block in the subject's report (get_report)', which implies a relationship with the report path. However, it never states when this tool should be preferred over siblings, nor does it mention the prerequisite that an issue_id must first come from get_revenue_leaks (that constraint only appears in the schema). Usage is therefore implied rather than spelled out.

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