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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely useful behavior: full attachment output is gated behind the `royal_mcp_pro_maintenance_report_include_attachment` filter (default false), so by default only the summary plus `admin_view_url` is returned. That is a real disclosure an agent could not derive from the schema or annotations.

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 content list is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is the right choice. It loses a little to internal jargon ('B11 privacy', trailing '(site: demo.royalplugins.com)' and '(Royal MCP Pro)' branding) that adds tokens without adding decision value.

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 the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so by enumerating the four report sections and the default summary+admin_view_url payload. Adequate for a zero-required-parameter read-only tool; only field-level detail 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 description coverage is 100%, and each parameter (site_id, window_days, compose_mode, include_error_log) is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the 30-day default and adds no syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema; notably it never mentions `include_error_log` despite its client-facing caveat.

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 names the specific resource (a monthly rollup) and enumerates its four components: pending plugin updates, SiteVault last-backup status, audit-log tool-call summary, and a home-page perf snapshot. That is far more specific than a generic 'report' tool, though it never names a sibling (e.g. recipe__site_report, fleet__health_summary) that an agent should prefer for narrower needs.

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?

It states the default window and that the call 'runs straight away', implying this is a safe ad-hoc summary, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance. With dozens of overlapping reporting tools among the siblings, the agent is left to infer that this is the one-call monthly summary rather than a targeted health/backup check.

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