full_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so thoroughly. It reveals that results are 'facts and anomaly flags only, aggregated from each check's own output — never a merged verdict,' that the report is persisted and re-readable via the returned URI, and that format detection is based on file extension (.docx or .pdf). This goes well beyond a simple command summary.

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 longer than average, but it is dense and front-loaded: the primary purpose and output are stated first, followed by profile selection, then input forms. Every sentence contributes meaningful operational detail. The references to brief §5.1/§5.2 and the server's global instructions add useful pointers, though they make the description slightly less self-contained than it could be.

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 tool with four parameters, no annotations, and an output schema already present, the description covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly: input alternatives and constraints, profile semantics, format detection, aggregation behavior, and post-call re-reading via the URI. No critical operational aspect is left unstated.

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 every parameter, and it does. It defines `path` as a filesystem path, explains `content_base64` as inline content requiring `filename` alongside it, states the exact cardinality constraint ('Exactly one of the two input forms must be given'), and enumerates both `profile` values with their meanings and defaults. This fully compensates for the bare schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Runs every applicable check') and names the resource ('the document') and the exact output shape ('aggregated report as a report://{file_id} resource URI, plus an inline summary'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling check tools by being the aggregate that runs all applicable checks, not a single check.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'full' profile runs every applicable check, while 'typography_only' selects the format-specific typography/layout check, naming the sibling tools check_docx_typography and check_pdf_layout. It also precisely states the two accepted input forms (path OR content_base64+filename) and the 'exactly one' requirement, leaving no ambiguity about how to invoke it.

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