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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description explicitly states 'Side effect: sends real messages now' and includes a DANGER ZONE warning to list and confirm destinations. This adds crucial behavioral context about real-world impact and safety, going well beyond what annotations 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 extremely concise and front-loaded, leading with the side-effect warning, then the core action, destination format, and a clear safety directive. Every sentence contributes operational value without waste.

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's mutation nature and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers the action, side effect, destination format, a necessary prerequisite (list_available_destinations), and a mandatory user confirmation step. It leaves no significant gaps for safe invocation.

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 schema already has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all parameters. The description adds complementary value by noting the destination shape matches create_report and that channel ids must be resolved via list_available_destinations, reinforcing the schema's explainer and providing cross-tool guidance.

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 function: 'Re-delivers an already-rendered successful execution without recomputing widgets.' This is a specific verb+resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like retry_report_execution or run_report_now. The mention of 'sends real messages' also clarifies the real-world side effect, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 solid usage context: it is for re-delivering successful executions, references the destination shape from create_report, and instructs resolving channel ids via list_available_destinations. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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