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

The description goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing the real side effect of sending messages and labeling it a 'DANGER ZONE.' It also reveals the return behavior (canonical execution URLs and statuses) and the need for user confirmation. No contradiction with annotations exists; the description adds crucial 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 highly concise with three purposeful sentences: it states the core side effect, the safety step, and the return value/exclusion. There is zero filler and the 'DANGER ZONE' warning is front-loaded for immediate visibility.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description clearly states what is returned (canonical execution URLs and statuses) and covers prerequisites, confirmation, and exclusions. For a two-parameter tool with no nested objects, this is complete and actionable for an agent.

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 input schema already provides 100% description coverage for all parameters (slug and reportId), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra parameter-level semantics beyond the schema; it focuses on usage context rather than parameter syntax.

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 explicitly states the tool 'sends real messages now to every configured destination,' which clearly identifies the action (sends) and resource (report destinations). It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting 'Never use this to recover only failed destinations,' pointing to retry_report_execution as an alternative.

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 provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: it instructs to 'show the report name and complete destination list from get, then ask the user to confirm before calling' and explicitly warns against using it to recover only failed destinations. This gives clear operational context and an implicit alternative (retry_report_execution).

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