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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions tracking and overdue status, implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, whether any side effects occur, or what output is returned. It lacks details on permissions or behavior with no entity_id.

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 description is a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. There is no wasted verbiage, and it is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

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?

Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is not complete enough. It fails to explain return values, behavior for all or specific entity_id, or any exclusions. The tool likely needs more details to be used correctly.

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 input schema has one parameter (entity_id) with no description and schema coverage is 0%. The description only says 'per entity' which vaguely implies filtering, but provides no guidance on how to use the parameter, its format, or that it is optional. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema detail.

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 clearly indicates the tool provides status tracking for incident reports per entity, including deadlines and overdue status. It distinguishes itself from siblings like incident_report and get_report by focusing on tracking all incidents per entity with deadline/overdue information.

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 usage when one needs a list of all incident reports for an entity with deadline/overdue status, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like deadline_tracker or nca_submission_status. Context is inferred rather than stated.

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