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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new context: output is returned inline rather than emailed, and the caller must have project visibility. It stops short of covering size limits or failure behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the content list, then the key behavioral caveat (no email). No redundant restatement of the title or parameters.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains the return shape (inline Markdown report containing state, counts, risks, recommendations). The only gap is projectId's expected form, which is neither in the schema nor the description.

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 50%: locale is fully documented in the schema, while projectId has no description. The description only implicitly scopes projectId to 'one project' and adds the visibility requirement; it gives no format hints. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries part of the load.

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 and resource ('Generate a Markdown status report for one project') and enumerates the report contents (current state, task counts, top risks, recommendations). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-siblings like compose_status_digest, week_status, or summarize_project, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage context is implied: it produces a report for one project and explicitly does not email it, deferring email to a separate explicit step. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this over overlapping siblings such as compose_status_digest or week_status, and no stated prerequisites beyond visibility.

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