radar_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral rule that windows may only be tightened, never loosened, and that output includes severity and consequence. However, it never states that the tool is read-only, whether it has side effects, what permissions are needed, or how results are ordered beyond 'ranked'.

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?

A single dense sentence with the report scope front-loaded and the constraint rule appended. No filler, though the bracket token '[verify]' is unexplained jargon that costs a little readability.

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 parameterless-required report tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the report contents and the window-override rule but leaves the nested windows object opaque and never clarifies return structure or severity definitions. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for as_of (YYYY-MM-DD) and defines the tightening-only constraint on windows, which is genuinely beyond the schema. But the nested windows object's keys, units, and accepted values remain undefined, leaving meaningful ambiguity.

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 the specific artifact produced: a ranked list of upcoming expiry events, with enumerated categories (renewal <=60d, premium due <=14d, grace end, escrow proof, enrollment windows) plus severity and consequence. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like policy_list and gap_report, though the tool name itself is generic.

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?

Usage is implied by 'ranked upcoming events' and the optional as_of/windows overrides, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no sibling tool is named as an alternative. An agent can infer this is the right tool for expiry triage, but must reason about gap_report vs radar_report on its own.

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