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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that inputs are validated server-side, which is a behavioral insight. However, it does not disclose other traits like idempotency, response size, or potential delays, but given annotations cover the core safety, the score is adequate.

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 relatively short (3 sentences), but includes extraneous marketing phrases and a reference case that do not aid agent understanding. The core message is clear but could be more concise without losing informativeness.

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?

Given the complexity of nested required parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not describe the return format, what constitutes a 'structured, audited deliverable,' or how the output relates to inputs. The reference case provides a partial example but lacks comprehensive coverage.

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 only 13%, yet the description fails to explain any parameter meanings or usage. It merely instructs to 'send the documented case fields' without elaborating on company, pillars, stakeholders, or audienceProfile. This severely hinders correct parameter value selection.

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?

The description clearly states the tool returns a structured, audited sustainability report, identifying the verb (return) and resource (report). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like sustainability_reporting_pilot, and the inclusion of a reference case and marketing language adds minor ambiguity.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as sustainability_reporting_pilot. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are given, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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