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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: page until the cursor is null and keep paging even after an empty page — a real trap avoided. It stops short of stating what a returned report record contains, so not a 5.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope before the fallback guidance; nothing is padding. The 'nextOffset' mention is the only loose thread, since no such parameter is in the schema.

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 carries more burden to explain return values, and it only hints at a cursor field without describing the report records themselves. It does cover the retrieval loop and the sibling routing well, but is partial for a 4-parameter discovery tool.

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 only 25% (only 'search' is documented), so the description needs to compensate and does not — limit, offset and projectId are never explained. Worse, the description references 'nextOffset' while the schema's parameter is 'offset', which risks confusing the agent about which field to feed back for pagination.

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 ('Discover ... Insights reports') plus the exact access scopes covered (private, team-shared, individually shared within a project). An agent can distinguish it from get_insights_report and query_insights_report 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 routes the agent: fall back to query_replo_analytics when no relevant saved report exists, use get_insights_report for definitions, query_insights_report for current results. This is a full when-to-use / when-to-use-something-else map naming the actual siblings.

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