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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds value on top: the operation is free and consumes no credit, results are paginated up to 100 with a page count at the top of output, and the empty result returns 'No reports found.' None of this is in the structured data.

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?

Front-loads the core action and ordering, then layers alternatives, cost, filtering, pagination and empty-state in tight sentences. Every sentence carries distinct, actionable information with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description fully carries the return contract: entry fields (ID, URL, score, status, creation time), pagination behavior, and the empty-state string. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret it 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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds workflow-level meaning the schema lacks: filtering by URL or status, the up-to-100 page size, and the read-the-page-count-then-request-next-page loop. This meaningfully exceeds what the raw parameter docs convey.

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 and resource ('List the page reports this account has generated') plus ordering ('newest first'), and enumerates the fields each entry contains. An agent can distinguish it from get_report and get_findings without opening any schema.

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 names the alternatives and the selecting conditions: use it to find a report ID for get_report/get_findings, or to check already-scanned pages before spending a credit on analyze_website. This is exactly the when/when-not/which-sibling guidance the dimension rewards.

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