post_market_report

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does mention that with an actor the report is signed into the ledger as a monitoring entry (a write operation) and without it the operation is read-only. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as permissions, rate limits, failure modes, or output format. This partial disclosure earns a middle score.

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 dense and packs a lot of information into a single run-on sentence listing report contents, followed by two explanatory sentences. It is not excessively long but could be better structured (e.g., bullet points or separate sentences). The key purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but readability suffers from the long enumeration.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return value or output format, error conditions, or the exact semantics of `since` and `until`. It also does not explain the `note` parameter. While it covers the report contents and the write/read behavior, an agent would lack crucial details needed to call the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It explicitly explains `plan` (operator's monitoring plan with name, version, hash) and `actor` (signing behavior). However, `since`, `until`, and `note` are not described; the mention of 'one period' implies but does not specify that since/until define the period. With only 2 of 5 parameters covered, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 it produces an Art. 72 post-market monitoring report for a period, and enumerates its contents (actions, errors, incidents, risks, etc.). This is specific and distinguishes it from other report tools like pii_report or incident_report by its unique scope and subject matter.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions the report is read-only without an actor and signed with one, but it does not state conditions for selecting this tool over sibling report tools. The intended use case is implied but not directly stated.

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