Prepare customer support report

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

Annotations already establish the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it is a 'staging' step rather than final delivery, targets a 'private' tracker, and explicitly notes that account identity and scan images are excluded (a privacy/data-handling trait).

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 no filler, and the core purpose plus the notable exclusion are front-loaded. Efficient and well-structured, though it is short relative to the complexity of the operation.

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?

For a non-idempotent mutation with 6 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and multiple sibling report tools, the description is thin. It omits parameter details, the relationship to the draft/retry/status flow, and any note on retry behavior despite the non-idempotent annotation.

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 description coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, including two enum fields (category, context_type) and a nested 'diagnostics' object whose inner fields are entirely undocumented. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 clear verb ('stage') and resource (a high-priority ReceiptCal customer report) plus its destination (the private support tracker), so the operation itself is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling 'prepare_create_customer_report_draft', which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and never names the related siblings ('prepare_create_customer_report_draft', 'prepare_retry_customer_report', 'get_customer_report_status'). An agent gets no routing signal for choosing this over the draft or retry variants.

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