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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only; never starts new investigations', adding the specific safeguard against triggering investigations. It also explains behavior for the `tree` view ('returns the full formatted tree'), which is context beyond the schema. Slightly more could be said about error cases or response format, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 plus an example, with zero filler. It front-loads the core purpose first, then provides invocation detail, and closes with a concrete example. Every sentence contributes information.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description covers the main usage flow and highlights a key behavior (full tree). The annotations cover safety. However, it does not describe what each enum value (`series`, `investigations`) returns or what happens if the provided view is not in the drillDown list. Still, the tool is relatively simple and the example helps fill gaps.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by explaining that `widgetId` and `view` come from a drillDown list and by specifying that the `tree` view returns a full formatted tree. This goes beyond the schema's bare enum descriptions. The example also shows real-world usage. No param-specific info is missing that would require a higher score.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and clearly identifies the resource ('advanced view for one widget from get_report_execution'). It also distinguishes this from the sibling `get_report_execution` by focusing on drill-down views per widget. The example and mention of 'DIGEST tree' further clarify scope.

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 instructs the agent to 'Pass widgetId and a view from its drillDown list', giving explicit invocation guidance and a concrete example. It also notes the read-only nature, which prevents misuse. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like `preview_report_widget` or state when this is preferable to `get_report_execution`.

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