unlock_report

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

The description discloses important behaviors beyond annotations: 'records the submitted email as a lead and issues a 24h report token (not read-only).' It also describes the return structure and error condition. Annotations already show readOnlyHint=false, consistent with the description. Minor missing details about rate limits or full side effects, but sufficient for understanding.

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 concise with two sentences covering purpose, behavior, return, and usage instructions. Every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main action.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return values (token, expires_at, report_url) and the prerequisite condition (get_scan shows access.campaign). It also provides next steps. This is complete for the tool's complexity with 2 required parameters and clear behavior.

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% with detailed descriptions. The description adds extra semantic value, such as the email being captured as a lead and that any valid email works regardless of domain. This goes beyond the schema's basic parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states 'Unlock a completed scan's full findings and fix plan for free during an active campaign.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning the alternative 'create_checkout_handoff' when the campaign is inactive.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Call this only when get_scan shows access.campaign; then re-poll get_scan or call generate_fix_plan with the returned token.' It also specifies when not to use: 'Only works while a free campaign is active (otherwise returns 403 — use create_checkout_handoff instead).' This gives clear context and alternatives.

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