aureon_prepare_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It usefully discloses a real behavioral trait — no broadcast occurs, so nothing irreversible happens — and that a signing message is returned. But it omits auth/permission requirements and what state (if any) is mutated on the objective.

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 tight sentences with zero waste; the core action is front-loaded and the crucial non-broadcast caveat follows immediately.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly states the return ('the message to sign') and confirms the non-broadcast semantics. For a one-parameter prepare step this is nearly complete, missing only prerequisite/auth context.

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 coverage is 100% for the single objectiveId parameter, and its schema description ('Objective id') is minimal. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail for the id, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Build') and resource ('financial report') and adds the scope 'from stored rows'. Implies the prepare/confirm two-step pattern via 'return the message to sign', though it never names the sibling aureon_confirm_report outright.

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?

'Does not broadcast' implies the caller must proceed to sign and confirm, so the workflow role is inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs aureon_confirm_report/aureon_list_reports guidance, leaving the agent to infer the sequencing.

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