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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context that the report tolerates 'available' (partial) analyses and flags incomplete work as such. It still omits what happens when scan_id doesn't exist or isn't owned, and what the report contains.

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 dense sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is slightly overloaded (three ideas packed into one clause chain) 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 no output schema, the description should convey what the report actually is/returns, and it does not. For a two-required-parameter tool it also leaves both parameters unexplained and gives no behavioral boundary for partial or failed input, so an agent can construct the call but not predict the result.

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% for two required parameters. The description only obliquely gestures at them — 'owned server scan' hints scan_id refers to a scan the caller owns, and that ownership is enforced — but workspace_token is never mentioned and no format, source, or constraint is given for either.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Generate the service's report', with a stated input basis ('owned server scan and available analyses') and a stated characteristic ('indicating incomplete work'). However, 'report' is not clearly separated from the sibling 'incident_report', nor from 'get_scan'/'get_analysis' whose outputs feed it, so the agent must guess the boundary.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (must a scan exist? must analyses finish?), and no mention of alternatives such as incident_report or audit_status. The clause 'indicating incomplete work' hints the report is safe to run before analyses finish, but that must be inferred rather than stated.

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