generate_summary_report

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns JSON with Markdown content, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it triggers crawling or other side effects, or what limitations exist.

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 compact and well-organized with Args and Returns sections. The example and important note for date_range are useful, though the opening phrase repeats the tool name without adding much.

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 two-parameter tool, inputs and output format are well covered, and an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. However, missing usage guidance and side-effect disclosure make the definition incomplete for an agent choosing among many sibling analytics and reporting tools.

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 adds substantial value by specifying report_type values and providing a concrete object format for date_range with an example and a warning against passing integers. However, the 'must be object' instruction conflicts slightly with the schema's anyOf allowing object, string, or null.

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 clearly states the tool generates daily/weekly hot-topic summary reports, with a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar sibling tools like aggregate_news or compare_periods, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only documents arguments and returns, leaving the agent to infer which sibling tool is appropriate for a given task.

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