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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'delete' but does not clarify whether deletion is permanent, reversible, or requires special permissions, nor does it mention side effects on related data. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action 'Delete a report'. The second sentence is slightly redundant with the first ('no longer relevant' vs 'outdated or irrelevant'), but overall it is concise and efficiently structured.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description explains what and when, but omits critical context for a delete operation such as irreversibility, permissions, or post-delete effects. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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?

Input schema covers report_id with 100% schema description coverage, already stating it is a UUID of the report to delete. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

Description clearly states the action 'Delete a report' with a specific resource. It adds context 'no longer relevant' but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like update_report_status, though 'delete' is a distinct operation.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use to clean up outdated or irrelevant reports.' This offers clear when-to-use guidance but does not mention alternatives or exclusions, such as update_report_status for status changes instead of deletion.

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