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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description's added value beyond that is a list of content categories, which largely overlaps with the existing output schema; it says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or freshness of the bill-of-lading data.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the fetch scope front-loaded and the routing hint second. Every clause earns 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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and the content-scope sentence plus the search routing hint are enough for correct invocation. Only minor gaps (data recency, whether the slug must be canonical) remain, and the schema already covers slug resolution.

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 100% and the slug property is already richly documented, including an example ('target') and the server-side loose-match resolution behavior. The description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('ImportYeti company report') and enumerates the report's content scope (identity, shipment-volume metrics, suppliers, bill-of-lading activity). It is clearly distinguishable from the only sibling, importyeti_search, which is for discovery rather than detail retrieval.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to importyeti_search for the discovery step, which is the key decision point for this tool. It does not, however, state any prerequisites or exclusions beyond that one handoff, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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