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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds a meaningful access requirement (owner or platform admin only) and clarifies what data is returned (daily/weekly summary to Telegram or email, schedule, channel, contents), which is useful context beyond annotations.

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?

The description is very compact and front-loads the core resource description before the permission constraint. Both the main sentence and the authorization fragment earn their place with no redundancy.

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, one-parameter read-only tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, returned data, and access restrictions adequately. It does not explain return shape or pagination, but those are minor gaps at this complexity level.

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%, so the schema fully documents the single project_id parameter, including that it comes from dosai_list_projects. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is appropriate given the complete schema 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?

The description states the resource — reports the owner receives — and its contents (schedule, channel, what is in them), but it does not use a clear retrieval verb or explicitly say it lists report settings. It also does not differentiate from siblings like dosai_update_report or dosai_list_scheduled_messages.

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?

It gives an authorization constraint ('Owner or platform admin only') but no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as dosai_update_report or dosai_send_report_now. The intended use is only implied.

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