generate_summary_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the critical constraint that date_range must be an object (not an integer) and states the return format (JSON with Markdown). However, it does not disclose other traits like data source, read-only behavior, or edge-case handling.

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 structured with Args/Returns and is reasonably concise, but uses Markdown formatting and spacing that adds some length. It is not overly verbose and every part adds value.

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?

The tool has a simple interface (two optional params) and an output schema exists. The description covers the purpose, input formats, and return format. It lacks deeper context about content specifics or failure modes, but is otherwise sufficient.

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?

The schema has no descriptions, and the description fully compensates. It explains report_type values (daily/weekly), provides a concrete date_range format and example, and warns about the object-type requirement. This is far beyond the raw 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 clearly states the tool generates daily/weekly hotspot summary reports, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings via the 'daily/weekly summary' and 'hotspot' focus, but does not explicitly contrast with overlapping tools like aggregate_news or compare_periods.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention use cases, exclusions, or situations where sibling tools would be more appropriate.

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