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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write. The description adds useful context about where the report lands (the Agent Reports dashboard) but does not say what the call returns, whether duplicate reports are created, or any auth/ownership requirements. Some added value beyond annotations, but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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 with the destination and content scope front-loaded; 'Not a loyalty action' efficiently rules out a whole category of misuse. Slightly terse phrasing ('Internal.') sacrifices a little clarity for compactness but no sentence is wasted.

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 4 required parameters, no output schema, and only generic annotations, the description covers the purpose but leaves the agent without a return-value expectation (e.g., a report ID) or mention of what the created report looks like in list_my_reports. Adequate for invocation, incomplete for a write tool whose result the agent may need to reference later.

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 description coverage is 100%, so required fields like agent_role and report_type are already fully documented and the description adds nothing new about them. The parenthetical content examples loosely map to the report_type values but duplicate rather than extend the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries parameter meaning.

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?

Names a specific verb ('send') and a specific destination ('the merchant's Agent Reports dashboard'), plus examples of content types (SEO audits, growth ideas, anomalies, weekly summaries). This clearly separates it from siblings like list_my_reports, delete_report, and update_report_status, though it never names those siblings directly.

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?

'Internal.' and 'Not a loyalty action.' set a general boundary, implying the tool is for the agent's own reporting rather than customer-facing loyalty flows. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus list_my_reports/update_report_status, and no stated prerequisites or conditions that would select this tool over a sibling.

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