hcp_render_report

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds substantial behavioral detail: output is self-contained/offline, it returns the finished HTML, contract errors are listed and nothing renders, and links are restricted to http/https with specific rendering behavior. This greatly exceeds what annotations alone provide.

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 long but every sentence is necessary given the complex contract. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured contract details, formatting rules, and output behavior. No redundant or filler sentences are present.

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?

Given the complex nested object, sparse schema, and no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers the full input contract, return value, error behavior, platform-specific handling, security constraints, and rendering nuances, leaving no significant gap for the agent.

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?

Although the schema only describes a generic 'report' object, the description fully specifies the contract: required keys (skill, title, sections), section structure (title, severity, blocks), block types (table, prose/lead, list, subhead), optional top-level keys, and markdown formatting rules. This is a comprehensive compensation for the sparse 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Render a findings report into one self-contained, offline, interactive HTML file.' It also explicitly differentiates from siblings by stating it is a presentation tool that makes no Housecall Pro call and operates on existing findings, making its role unmistakable.

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 clearly establishes when to use the tool: when you already have findings and need an interactive HTML report. It also gives platform-specific guidance (write to .html in Claude Code, present as artifact on Claude Desktop). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough to guide appropriate use.

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