Ops report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it discloses that 'estimated hours saved' is derived from a stated assumption, and that team mode aggregates across a shared folder and splits per operator. It still says nothing about behavior when the log is empty or partial, or about the response shape.

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 sentences, no filler, and the report contents are front-loaded. However, the first sentence is a dense comma list rather than a clear statement of purpose, so the core 'what this is' arrives later than it should.

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 does carry its weight by enumerating the report's components, which is the most valuable thing it does. For a three-parameter tool with low schema coverage, though, leaving `days` and `minutes_per_manual_check` unexplained leaves the agent guessing on two of three inputs.

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 33% — only `team` is documented. The description reinforces the team semantics and obliquely gestures at `minutes_per_manual_check` through 'estimated hours saved (assumption stated)', but never explains what that parameter controls or its units, and `days` (the reporting window) is not mentioned at all in either the description or the schema.

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 names the concrete contents of the report (checks run, problems caught, top findings, weekly trend, hours saved) and its data source (the usage log), so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not distinguish itself from adjacent reporting siblings such as what_breaks, what_changed, or launch_health, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the aggregation framing and by the explicit 'With team: true' branch, which tells the agent when to flip that flag. There is no statement of when to prefer this over the sibling overview tools (what_breaks, what_changed, launch_health) or any prerequisite beyond the team-folder note carried in the schema.

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