get_effectiveness_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: judgments are automatic, sourced from record_outcome, independent of manual compliance reporting, and returned as JSON without changing records.

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 compact and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and then adding the automatic/manual distinction, parameter defaults, and read-only behavior. Every clause contributes useful selection or invocation context.

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 still enumerates the rate categories and states that the response is JSON. It could be slightly more complete about the reporting window or whether rates are counts versus percentages, but it provides enough for correct selection and invocation.

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 only 50%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It explains that agent_id optionally filters the summary and that limit defaults to 10, adding meaning beyond the schema for both parameters.

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 specific verb and resource: get automatic effectiveness judgments for injected memories. It names the exact metrics (useful/neutral/harmful/insufficient_context rates) and distinguishes the tool from manual compliance reporting by saying it is independent of report_compliance.

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 clearly positions the tool as the automatic effectiveness counterpart to manual report_compliance, which helps an agent choose between the two. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the alternative and context are clear.

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