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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses cost behavior (free with Pro, $0.005 USDC via x402), anonymous/free-tier access, and the output nature (analysis, not modification). This goes beyond the schema but could add more on time expectations or that it does not alter the report.

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?

Two sentences with front-loaded purpose. The pricing info is relevant and concise. No redundant or filler content; every sentence adds value.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains what it does, what it returns, and cost/access context. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly without further guidance.

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% and job_id is clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond 'completed report,' which mirrors the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 runs LLM deep analysis on a completed report and returns detailed AI analysis with priority issues and recommendations. It uses a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('completed report'), distinguishing it from siblings like analyze_url and get_report.

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 implies usage on a completed report (job_id provided) but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use. Sibling tools are not mentioned, so the agent lacks explicit guidance on choosing this over analyze_url or generate_fix_prompt.

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