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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description need not repeat those safety traits. It adds value by naming the exact reporting dimensions (source dates, coverage, record counts, SHA256 provenance), which go beyond what annotations provide.

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 that wastes no words; every phrase ('actual source dates,' 'coverage,' 'record counts,' 'SHA256 provenance') adds distinct information.

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 parameterless reporting tool, the description covers the essential facts an agent needs to decide to invoke it. It lacks an explicit output format, but the listed report contents are sufficient given the tool's simplicity and read-only annotations.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, there are no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for parameterless tools applies. The description is not required to explain inputs and instead clarifies what the tool reports.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and enumerates precise output contents: actual source dates, coverage, record counts, and SHA256 provenance. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search or detail, which do not promise provenance/coverage metrics.

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 guidance is provided about when to choose this tool over siblings such as detail, document, or explain_match. There are no scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions stated, so the agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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