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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses the condensed behavior, the omission of raw time-series and full DIGEST trees, and the ability to expand widget drillDowns. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 compact and front-loaded, using three sentences plus a short example. Each sentence adds necessary information: what the tool returns, what it omits, and which sibling to use for more detail.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description enumerates the key returned fields (status, destination, per-widget summaries, URLs) and explicitly lists what is not included. This is sufficient for an agent to contract on a read-only summary call.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description includes a concrete example with executionId, but it does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides for either parameter.

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 begins with a specific verb-resource pair ('Get a condensed execution summary') and lists concrete contents (status, destination, per-widget summaries, URLs). It also distinguishes itself from get_report_execution_widget by explicitly pointing to that sibling for expanded widget details.

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 clearly states what the tool omits (raw time-series, full DIGEST trees) and names get_report_execution_widget as the alternative for drillDown widgets. It also instructs the agent to mention DIGEST tree/node investigations are available, which is practical guidance for when to use this tool vs. other investigation paths.

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