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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/write nature is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: the ~15-30s latency, that the result is persisted and retrievable afterward, and that 'monthly' costs more tokens/time. It does not detail auth/permission needs, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Nicely structured and front-loaded: purpose first, then timing/persistence, then a type list, then usage trigger. Slightly verbose with some restatement, but every section earns its place for a tool with three modes.

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 costly generation tool with no output schema, the description covers all an agent needs: what it does, how long it takes, that the result is stored and retrievable elsewhere, the mode differences, and that it returns the content directly. Nothing material is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema's bare enum by explaining what each type produces (daily = today's summary/tasks/notes; weekly = trends/highlights; monthly = full analysis with more tokens/time). The workspace_id parameter is left to the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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 (generate) and resource (a new AI report of the workspace), and enumerates the data sources it analyzes (daily notes, completed tasks, recent activity). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling read tools get_reports/get_last_report, which are explicitly named as the retrieval endpoints.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Usar cuando el usuario pide "generá un reporte"...') and clarifies the relationship to alternatives: generation here, retrieval via get_reports/get_last_report once finished. The 15-30s timing sets expectations before invocation.

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