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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/idempotency profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: a fixed $0.50 per-call cost, which matters for an agent deciding whether to invoke. It says nothing about latency, output format, or what happens on partial/unsupported documents.

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?

Three short sentences with the purpose front-loaded, but the third sentence ('A single report from invoices, contracts and notes') largely restates the first, and the pricing sentence is inserted mid-flow rather than after the operational facts. Compact, but one sentence does not earn its place.

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, so the description should explain what 'structured report' actually contains (sections, fields, format) — it does not. Combined with the undocumented 'documents' element format and no note on how many documents are accepted, an agent lacks the information needed to invoke this reliably.

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 50%: 'focus' is documented in the schema, but the required 'documents' array has no description at all. The description hints at content types (invoices, contracts, notes) but never states the expected element format — file paths, URLs, or raw text — which is the single most important thing an agent must know to call this correctly.

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 and resource ('Turn several business documents into a structured report'), which is far clearer than a name restatement. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as fikra_generate_procurement_report or fikra_generate_expense_report, so an agent cannot tell which report generator to pick from purpose alone.

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?

'Turn several business documents into...' and 'A single report from invoices, contracts and notes' imply the use case (multi-document synthesis rather than single-document extraction). There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for narrower report needs.

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