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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful domain context: the report must be 'owned' (an authorization scoping constraint) and clarifies it does not generate or purchase reports. It could go further on error behavior for non-owned reports, but it adds real value beyond the annotations.

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 short sentences with zero waste. The primary capability is front-loaded, followed immediately by the parameter source and the negative constraint.

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?

For a simple read-only, one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it names the return contents (status, section index, resume link), explains where to get the identifier, and rules out report generation/purchase. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does so by explaining that orderId comes from list_reports, which the schema (which only defines UUID format and pattern) cannot convey. The description does not explain what happens with an invalid or non-owned orderId, but the provenance guidance is the key missing piece and it is provided.

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 (read) and resource (one owned report) and enumerates what is returned: status, section index, and resume link. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings list_reports and get_report_section.

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?

Explicitly says to use an orderId from list_reports, giving the agent the correct source for the required identifier, and adds a negative constraint ('does not generate or purchase a report'). It does not explicitly mention get_report_section as the alternative for reading section content, but the 'available section index' phrasing implies the routing.

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