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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact — 'Does not retry the failed operation' — which helps an agent avoid expecting re-execution, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or response shape.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the key caveat; no filler. Sized appropriately for a simple read tool.

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?

For a simple read-only status check with no output schema, the core action and one behavioral caveat are present. But with 0% schema coverage and an undocumented connection_context parameter, the definition is not fully complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It names report_ref and its purpose but never explains the format/validity constraint (the ^greport_ prefix) or acknowledges connection_context at all, leaving the second parameter entirely undocumented.

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 ('Read') and resource ('status of your support report'), and ties it to the report_ref input. It is clearly distinguishable from the mutation-oriented siblings, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with support_report_error.

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?

Implies usage is to check the status of an existing report via its ref, which is reasonable context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to the similarly named support_report_error sibling, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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