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

With no annotations, the description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the action-plan requirement. It does not disclose side effects, required prior conditions, output behavior, or who receives the 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's core purpose and a critical conditional requirement. No 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?

Despite having 7 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description only covers the report's purpose and one condition. It omits parameter semantics, behavior, and return/output details, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 0% and the description does not explain any of the 7 parameters. The only indirect hint is the action_plan requirement, but the meaning of recovery_status, containment_actions, expected_resolution, etc., is left entirely to the schema.

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?

Clearly identifies the tool as generating the 72h intermediate report for major incidents (ITS 2025/302), using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like initial_notification and final_report.

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 implies the use case: 72 hours into a major incident, and notes when resolution is pending. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools like final_report.

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