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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds the useful detail that the report is scoped "for one revision" and involves an "editing lease," hinting at optimistic concurrency. However, "Reports" reads like a query while the annotations declare a mutation, and no auth, concurrency-failure, or lease-expiry behavior is disclosed.

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 with no wasted words, which is good. But for a 9-parameter mutation tool it is under-sized rather than concise, so it earns only a middling score.

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 values need not be described. But given 9 parameters at 22% coverage, no usage guidance, no sibling routing, and an ambiguous read/write framing, the description is not complete enough for an agent to call this 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 coverage is only 22% with 9 parameters (7 required), so the description must compensate and does not. It covers selection, focus, and editing indirectly, but leaves expectedRevision (concurrency token), contextId, sequence, and visible completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 names a verb ("Reports") and a resource (selection, focus, editing lease), but the verb conflicts with the title "Update the person's context" and the readOnlyHint=false annotation, leaving the agent unsure whether this reads or writes. It also fails to distinguish itself from close siblings like document.get_context and document.read_context. Purpose is graspable but muddled.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternatives (get_context, read_context), despite several siblings being semantically adjacent. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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