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), so the description earns credit for adding a genuinely new confidentiality contract: no raw private artifacts, no unpublished extraction output, no internal review notes, no bucket keys. That tells the agent what it will never receive and implicitly that missing data is by design rather than an error.

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, front-loaded with the return contract before the exclusion list. Nothing is padded; the negative-scope sentence is long but does real work by preempting futile data requests.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. The remaining gap is minor: how the observation_limit cap manifests (truncation vs. error) and what a bad or unpublished report_id produces is unstated.

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 0%, so the schema documents constraints but not meaning. The description gestures at both parameters — 'one published report revision' maps to report_id and 'bounded observation projection' maps to observation_limit — but adds no format, default, or cap detail beyond what the schema's pattern/maximum already enforce.

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: returns one published report revision plus a bounded observation projection. It's clear what the tool yields, but it never names or contrasts itself with siblings like get_latest_prices or get_methodology, so an agent still has to infer which report-shaped tool applies.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus the other get_* tools, and no prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid report_id from a prior listing call). The only scope language is about what the service refuses to expose, which is a boundary, not usage guidance.

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