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

Annotations declare it's a write (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable context: returns { id }, no SEO provider calls, no credit spend. It could go further by stating what happens on duplicate name or permission requirements.

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 tight sentences: the first states the action and result shape, the second gives the cost/free-tool context. Front-loaded with the core verb+resource and zero wasted words.

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?

Covers the essentials for a create tool: what it makes, the ordering behavior, return shape, and cost profile. Missing only edge-case guidance (duplicate names, limits, permissions), which is minor given the 100% schema coverage.

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 the schema fully documents all 3 parameters including the widgetTypes enum with descriptions. The description adds the print-order concept for widgets but this is already stated in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (Creates) and resource (report definition) with the key detail of print order for widgets. Distinguishes from set_report_widgets by implying creation rather than modification, but doesn't explicitly name any sibling for comparison.

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 FREE clause hints at cost guidance but doesn't specify when to use this vs set_report_widgets, rename_report_definition, or render_report_definition. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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