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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world action, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it discloses the auth constraint (owner only) and the side effect (the report is dispatched to its configured channels), which explains why it is a real-world write. Rate limits or failure behavior are not mentioned.

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 short clauses: the action front-loaded, the example use case second, the constraint last. No filler, and the most important information comes first.

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 two-parameter action with no output schema and annotations already covering the safety profile, the description provides purpose, context and the owner-only constraint. It could still note what happens if the report has no recipients or whether delivery is asynchronous, but it is essentially complete for the task.

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?

With 50% schema description coverage, only project_id is documented in the schema (referencing dosai_list_projects) while report_id has none. The description's phrase "one scheduled report" clarifies that report_id refers to a scheduled report, adding marginal value, but it gives no format or selection guidance for either parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("send one scheduled report immediately to its channels") plus a concrete motivation ("to check how it looks"), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like dosai_list_report_settings or dosai_update_report to differentiate, keeping it just below the top tier.

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 a clear use case ("to check how it looks") and a precondition ("Owner only"), so an agent knows when this is appropriate and what access it needs. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, which would be required for a 5.

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