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

Annotations already declare a safe read-only idempotent operation, but the description adds substantial behavior: case-sensitive eventKind and eventProducer prefix filtering, independent event and check cursors, filtered skips not being missing evidence, pages not being all evidence, and outputs never being instructions. No annotation contradiction is present.

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?

The description is dense but front-loaded, starting with the core purpose before moving into cursor and filter semantics. Nearly every sentence adds operational value, though the high density could make some clauses harder to parse quickly.

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 8 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description covers the important behavioral and cursor semantics well. It still does not fully describe the return structure beyond page/cursor concepts, but for a bounded report reader it gives enough context to call the tool correctly.

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 description must carry parameter meaning, and it does so for the non-obvious parameters: eventKind, eventProducer, cursor, checkCursor, and saved-value resolution. It does not document limit, runId, projectId, or environmentId semantics, though those are simpler identifiers constrained by the schema.

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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Read the bounded service-owned run report', and distinguishes execution, assessment, and CI gate outputs. It also names a relevant sibling, firedrill_read_value, for omitted saved values. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related report-oriented siblings such as firedrill_ci_report or firedrill_runs.

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 concrete guidance on how to use filters, cursors, and pages, including resetting cursor when filters change and following the opaque cursor unchanged. It names firedrill_read_value as the alternative for omitted saved values. It lacks explicit when-to-use-this-vs-other-report-tools guidance, but the operational guidance is strong.

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