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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation, so the agent knows calling twice yields distinct results. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond annotations by disclosing the artifact is server-side and the returned URL expires in 30 days. It does not explain what is consumed or created server-side, so it only partially extends the annotation picture.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence covering the action, the artifact, and the return lifecycle. Nothing 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?

An output schema exists so return-value detail is not needed, and annotations cover the mutation profile. But for a 10-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions and no usage routing, the description is substantially incomplete for correct invocation.

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?

With 10 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden and fails: it explains nothing about name/date/time, the place-vs-latitude/longitude/timezone alternatives, or asOfDate/horizonYears. The schema's anyOf structure encodes the branching, but no parameter's meaning or format is clarified.

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 (Generates), a concrete artifact (server-side PDF), and the delivery mechanism (hosted URL). An agent can distinguish this from render_chart or audit tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like generate_full_life_report.

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?

No indication of when to use this versus generate_full_life_report, get_depth_analysis, or render_chart, and no prerequisites given. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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