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 by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not say whether reports are generated asynchronously, whether the status can be transitional, or how often to poll. With annotations carrying the burden, a low score is still warranted because the description contributes zero additional behavioral context.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally sound. But the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined compression — the sentence is short because it omits necessary information, not because it says everything efficiently.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, which relieves some burden. Still, for a tool taking a nested required object at 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the agent without enough to distinguish it from `support_report_error` or to know when a report is ready versus pending.

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% and the description explains neither `report_ref` (a nested required field with a strict 36-character `rpt_` pattern) nor `connection_context`. The nested object structure means the schema constrains format but conveys no meaning; the description does not compensate at all.

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 states a verb and a resource ('Read a support report status'), so the agent knows it fetches status rather than performing an action. However, it is vague about what a 'support report' is, whether it is asynchronous, and how it differs from the only sibling `support_report_error`. Adequate but thin.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus `support_report_error`, no prerequisites, and no mention of polling or retry conditions. The single sentence implies a read context but never states it. This falls in 'no guidance' territory.

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