local_data_report

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that unreadable folders are reported as partial evidence rather than empty, that no_dispatch_never_verified is not proof of absence, that the journal/imports folder must never be suggested for deletion, and that each call appends metadata-only receipt lines locally (consistent with idempotentHint=false). It also states explicitly that nothing is written to Tally.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the opening clause and every sentence carries substantive constraints. The single dense paragraph with stacked caveats is heavier than it needs to be, but little is genuinely wasteful.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by naming the fields an agent will encounter (incomplete_reason, folders_that_could_not_be_listed, no_dispatch_never_verified) and by delimiting what is and is not covered. Complete enough to call and interpret correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description usefully notes that it reads fixed local folders and names no file path, which is the only parameter-adjacent information an agent needs.

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 and resource — reporting what the local data store holds, by class, with counts, sizes, oldest-file age and import-journal state. It is clearly distinguished from siblings like tally_status and verify_import, which concern Tally-side posting rather than local storage.

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 defines scope boundaries (what folders are covered vs not) and warns how to interpret no_dispatch_never_verified, which is real usage guidance. But it never states when to reach for this tool instead of verify_import, read_evidence or tally_status, so the alternative-selection guidance is only implied.

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