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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's only added behavioral detail is the workspace scoping, which is modest value beyond 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?

A single sentence with zero padding, led by the verb and resource, with the scoping qualifier last. Nothing to trim.

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 simple read-by-ID tool with no output schema and annotation-covered safety, this is close to adequate. However, the nested 'query' parameter is described in the schema as an override for sparse parameter schemas and the description never explains it, leaving a real gap for an agent that hits the sparse path.

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 schema coverage at 50%, the schema documents workspace_id and the opaque 'query' override object, but says nothing about brand_id or how 'query' is used. The description confirms the ID lookup is required and workspace-scoped but adds no format or semantics beyond that, so it does not fully compensate for the gap.

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+resource ('Retrieve a single report by ID') and scopes it to a workspace, which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling list operation aidelly_list_reports. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so it falls just short of 5.

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 parenthetical '(workspace-scoped)' implies the workspace context but never states when to use this versus aidelly_list_reports or aidelly_get_report_schedule. Usage is inferable from the name and verb, not spelled out.

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