Traceability report

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe-read profile, so the description only needs to add context. It adds that the report is not an official submission and bypasses the ENABLE_REPORTS gate, which is genuinely useful scope information, but says nothing about pagination via skip/take, result size, or cost of running across large event sets.

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, front-loaded sentences that name the report type first and then the content categories; no filler. The gate/submission disclaimer is placed after the substance, which is appropriate.

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 13-parameter, no-output-schema tool with zero parameter documentation, the description explains the what but not the how. An agent cannot determine which of the many filters to supply or how they interact, which is a substantial gap in invocation guidance.

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?

All 13 parameters have 0% schema description coverage and none are explained in the description. 'Movement gap checks' and 'identification basis' only faintly gesture at the movement/kind/date_basis filters, and the filter semantics for to/from/farm_id/include_void/include_legacy are left entirely undocumented.

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+resource ('Farm-record completeness report over typed events') and enumerates the report's contents (movement gap checks, identification basis, sent/received discrepancies, legacy section). This clearly distinguishes it from the CRUD siblings like list_traceability_events, though it never references any sibling by name.

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 clarifies what the report is not ('not an official submission; independent of the ENABLE_REPORTS gate') but gives no trigger for when to run it versus list_traceability_events, list_records, or get_traceability_event. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, only a scope disclaimer.

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