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

Adds real context beyond annotations: default window, UTC/Monday constraint, and a one-year retention limit on stored reports. However, the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, i.e. this call is not purely a read, and the description never explains what it writes or creates (presumably a stored/dashboard report) — that is the one behavioral fact an agent most needs here.

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-loaded with the core statement, then payload contents, then output identifiers, defaults, and use case. The payload enumeration sentence is dense but every item is decision-relevant; nothing reads as 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates well by naming the returned fields (report_id, generated_at, dashboard_path, agency_name) and the body of the report. The remaining gap is the non-read-only annotation: an agent cannot tell from the text whether calling this persists a new report.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning on top: week_start must be a Monday, omitting it defaults to last week, and earlier weeks are available only within the one-year retention window. That is genuine constraint information the schema's pattern does not 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+resource with scope: a weekly client health report for one site, Monday to Sunday UTC. It enumerates the payload (headline, backup, security, SEO bands, platform versions, alert counts, changes) plus the identifiers returned, which distinguishes it from fleet-wide tools like fleet__health_summary and from generator-style siblings like recipe__run_site_health.

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?

Gives a clear use case ("brief a client or draft a client email") and tells the agent when to pass week_start versus omitting it for last week. It does not explicitly name competing siblings or state exclusions, so it is clear context without full when/when-not routing.

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