Requests of the report screen

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds value: the diagnostic/live-verification framing, the required screen state, and 'Sends nothing to Booksy' confirm no mutation occurs. It also discloses output shape limits (no ids, values or headers), though it does not explain failure modes when the screen is not open.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, and the scope limits are stated compactly. The vague 'A check for live verification' leads, while the more actionable precondition sits second.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema diagnostic, the description covers the essential points: what it reveals, what it omits, and the required panel state. Only the exact response shape and behavior when the screen is not open remain unaddressed.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4.

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 states a concrete verb and resource: it shows which addresses the report frame requested, limited to address shapes and parameter names. That is specific enough to separate it from stats_report and stats_report_metadata, but the opening line 'A check for live verification' is abstract and the tool never explicitly names a sibling it is not.

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 one real precondition, 'Open the statistics screen in the panel first', which an agent must satisfy before calling. There is no statement of when to prefer this over stats_report_section or stats_report_catalog, and no exclusions, so the usage guidance is implied rather than complete.

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