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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about whether the report is persisted, whether the scan must already exist, whether generation is expensive/slow, or if it writes anything. For a report-generation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real gap.

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 efficient sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably too terse rather than bloated, but nothing is wasted.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-line description is not enough. An agent cannot tell what the optional parameters do or what the return looks like, so it is under-specified for a tool of this complexity.

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 compensate. It explains scan_id and implicitly maps operator_tier/lightweight to the format enum, but series, baseline, and next_cycle_hint (3 of 5 params) are completely undocumented 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?

States a specific verb (Generate) and resource (Field Intel Report) and names the two report variants, which an agent can distinguish from siblings like vara_get_scan or vara_list_scans. It stops short of explaining what an FIR actually contains, but the core action is unambiguous.

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?

No indication of when to call this versus vara_get_scan/vara_query_signals, and no guidance on choosing operator_tier over lightweight beyond naming them. The agent is left to infer the selection criteria entirely.

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