Render a check as a markdown report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds valuable non-obvious details: the exact output structure and the fact that report ids live only in server memory until the server exits. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 dense sentences carry all essential information: the first covers purpose and output composition, the second covers usage context and parameter provenance. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 read-only rendering tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it produces, and how to obtain valid inputs. The server-memory warning is especially valuable for correct invocation. Nothing critical appears missing.

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?

Both parameters are already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that report and report_id are alternatives, where each comes from, and the server-memory lifetime constraint that affects whether a report_id remains valid.

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's function: turning a finished check into a markdown diligence report, and enumerates the report's components. It distinguishes render_report from check_citations and check_document by positioning those as producers of the report_id this tool consumes.

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?

The description gives an explicit use condition: 'Use it when the user wants a report to keep or attach to the file.' It also explains the expected input sources (report_id from check tools or full JSON from /verify), but it does not explicitly list when not to use the tool or compare it against coverage/resolve siblings.

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