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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety bar is low. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the access requirement and the fact that archived snapshots are read as-is rather than regenerated, which shapes expectations about staleness.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the two operating modes, then the access prerequisite, then the negative constraint. No redundant or filler wording.

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 no output schema and 25% parameter coverage, the description leaves the agent guessing about pagination behavior for the date-listing mode and about what a snapshot read returns. It covers the core modes and access requirement but not the full call surface.

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 coverage is only 25% — only `path` is documented. The description implies that omitting `date` lists available archive dates and supplying it reads that snapshot, which adds real meaning. But limit/offset pagination semantics are left entirely to the bare 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?

Description states two specific modes with concrete verbs and resources: listing retained daily archive dates, and reading a saved daily snapshot. This distinguishes it from read_report (fresh reports) reasonably well, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

It gives a prerequisite ('Requires account research access') and a negative constraint ('Does not regenerate reports'), which implies the agent should look elsewhere for fresh report generation. However, no sibling tool is named and there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternative routing.

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