End-of-check card

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it explains the write side effect that justifies readOnlyHint=false (`.scenescout/recap.svg` when save is true), declares an error condition (refuses with no ended check), clarifies the data source ('built from the check's figures only'), and rules out browser activity. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before invoking.

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 payload contents are front-loaded, then outputs, then side effect, then preconditions — a logical order with no filler. Slightly list-heavy but each clause carries information.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description still tells the agent what comes back (SVG plus text lines) and covers preconditions, side effects, and data provenance. Nothing needed to call it correctly is 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?

Only one parameter at 100% schema coverage, and the schema already documents `save` identically. The description restates the same effect rather than adding format or failure details, so it hits the baseline.

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 artifact (the recap card of the guided check that just ended) and enumerates its contents — address, pages checked, problems by impact, confirmed fixes, elapsed time. That scopes it apart from scout_team_report and scout_lane_report without naming them explicitly.

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 precondition 'Refuses while no guided check has ended' plus 'for the person to share with their team' makes the timing and audience clear. No explicit exclusion or named alternative (e.g. scout_team_report), so it stops short of a 5.

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