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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It communicates that this is a read operation, applies only to existing reports, and does not block or wait. For a simple read tool with an output schema, this is meaningful behavioral coverage, though it does not mention failure modes like a missing or not-yet-generated report.

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?

The entire description is one efficient, front-loaded sentence. Every word earns its place: the action, the target, the identifier, and the behavioral qualifier are all present with no fluff.

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 one-parameter read operation with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what to call, what input is needed, and that it returns immediately. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit guidance on what happens when the report does not exist or is still being generated.

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?

The schema provides only a required string named 'slug' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description mentions 'by its slug' but adds no real semantics about what a slug is, how it is formatted, or how to obtain it. The description does not compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Read'), a concrete resource ('existing report'), and the exact lookup mechanism ('by its slug'). The qualifier 'without waiting' also separates it from the sibling wait_for_report, so an agent can distinguish this tool without inspecting schemas.

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?

The description provides clear context: this is for reports that already exist and should be read immediately, without polling or waiting. It does not explicitly name wait_for_report as the alternative or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of full explicit routing guidance.

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