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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the agent already knows this is not a pure read and is not safely repeatable. The description adds useful context the annotations do not (evidence is 'free', candidates require review, no payment approval), but it never explains the write implied by readOnlyHint=false — namely that save=true persists results — leaving the key behavioral question unanswered.

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, front-loaded with the core action and no filler; 'All evidence is free' and the review caveat are terse and each carries information. The first sentence is dense but not padded, so only marginal tightening is possible.

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 and no parameter descriptions, the description should at least sketch the return shape and the effect of 'save'; it gestures at output ('candidates require review') but never describes what a candidate group contains or that save=true persists it. Adequate to call the tool, incomplete for predicting the result.

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%, so the description must carry the load; it partially does by naming the grouping keys (entity, supplier, type, currency, reference, amount, date), which map onto the nested record fields. However, the 'save' parameter is never mentioned, and the description does not add format or constraint detail beyond what the schema itself encodes.

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 states a concrete action (group supplied records) and enumerates the matching rules (exact/normalized reference, exact amount/date within exact entity, supplier, type and currency), which lets an agent distinguish it from the report_*/license_* siblings. It never quite says 'detect duplicates' in prose, but the title plus the explicit match keys make the purpose 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Candidates require review; no payment approval' tells the agent the output is advisory and not an approval mechanism, which bounds how the result should be used. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or any named alternative, though the sibling set (reports, licensing) contains no plausible substitute for this tool.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that verification happens offline against a built-in public key, that the key is persisted to the config file, and that invalid keys are refused and left unsaved. This is substantial transparency for an activation tool, though it could mention overwriting an existing key or the exact return behavior.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the main action, source, verification method, and persistence. The second sentence efficiently covers error handling and points to the related read-back tool. Every clause 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?

Given a single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers activation behavior, verification mechanism, persistence, error outcomes, and how to read the result later. The only minor gap is an explicit statement of what the function returns upon success or failure, but the phrase 'refused, unsaved' implies a feedback mechanism. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 already documents the 'key' parameter at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by giving the concrete key format ('MCPL1.xxx.yyy'), confirming the key comes from the checkout page, and explaining that malformed or expired keys will be rejected. This goes beyond the schema's one-line description.

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 states a specific action ('Activate a Pro key'), the exact key format ('MCPL1.xxx.yyy'), the source ('from checkout'), and the core mechanism ('verified offline against a built-in public key'). It also differentiates itself from the sibling license_status by noting that license_status reads the activation back, so there is no ambiguity about which tool does what.

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 clear context: use this when you have a Pro key from checkout that needs to be activated. It also points to license_status as the read-back tool, which implies when to use a related sibling. It does not explicitly spell out 'do not use for checking status' or list other alternatives, but the context is strong enough to avoid misuse.

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

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the call is local ('no network') and argument-free, and it mentions a specific explanatory behavior. The word 'Report' implies read-only, though it does not explicitly state non-destructive or permission requirements; this is adequate for a status command.

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 with no filler. The first sentence lists the output fields; the second adds constraints and the sibling pointer. Every clause contributes meaningful information.

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 zero-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description lists the expected output fields, behavioral constraints, and the relevant alternative tool. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 zero parameters and the description reinforces this with 'No arguments'. It adds value by listing the reported fields, helping an agent understand what the empty input will yield. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is high, and the description meets it.

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 states a specific verb ('Report'), a clear resource ('this server's licence state'), and enumerates the exact fields returned. It also names the sibling 'license_activate' as the tool that does something different, so an agent can distinguish them immediately.

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 explicit usage constraints: no arguments, no network, and explains a free-tier refusal. It also directs the agent to license_activate when the task is to install a key, serving as an explicit pointer to the relevant alternative.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is partly covered. The description still adds real context: that deletion frees a storage slot (a side effect beyond the record) and that accounting records are unaffected. It omits that the action is non-idempotent, i.e. a repeat call on the same id behaves differently.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the primary action plus its side effect are front-loaded before the scope caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers the action, its side effect, and its blast radius. The main remaining gap is the irreversibility/non-idempotency of the delete, which an agent would want stated explicitly.

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?

There is a single 'id' parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden and says nothing about it. The schema's strict UUID regex pattern does document the expected format structurally, which limits the harm, but the description adds no meaning such as where the id comes from.

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 specific verb and resource ('Delete one local saved report') and bounds the scope ('local', 'free a storage slot'). It implicitly separates itself from accounting-record tools, though it never names a sibling like report_get or report_list to sharpen the contrast.

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 resource type ('saved report') and the scope note that it does not touch accounting records, which helps an agent decide this is a local cleanup action. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of related siblings such as report_list or report_export_csv.

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

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: formula-like cells are escaped (CSV-injection handling) and no financial-loss total is computed, both of which would otherwise surprise a caller.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, with no filler. The wording is dense to the point of being terse in places ('free CSV pages'), but nothing is wasted.

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 partially describe the return shape ('one row per record with reasons and group ids'), which is helpful. However, for a paginated export it omits the limit cap and how to advance through pages, so an agent cannot fully drive it from the definition alone.

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%, so the description must carry the parameters, but it only obliquely touches the id (saved report vs. 'preview:' form) and says nothing about limit or offset. The 1000-row cap and pagination behavior are entirely undocumented outside the schema types.

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?

Specific verb (Export) plus resource (CSV pages of a saved report or unsaved preview), which separates it from report_get/report_page siblings that return report data in another form. The phrase 'free CSV pages' is slightly cryptic but the core action is unambiguous.

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 implies when to use it (when a CSV of a report or preview is wanted) and hints that the id may be a saved report or an unsaved preview, but it never names a competing tool such as report_page or states exclusions. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety is covered. The description still adds real behavior beyond them: what the response contains and that oversized reports return paging instructions rather than truncating silently.

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 zero filler; the payload description is front-loaded and the paging caveat follows as a secondary clause. Every phrase earns its place.

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 read-only tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is returned and how large results are handled. The only meaningful gap is guidance on sourcing the required id.

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 0% for the single required 'id' parameter, so the description carries the burden. It implies the id identifies a saved report but never states that it is a required UUIDv4 or where to obtain it, so the compensation is only partial.

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 specific verb (Read) and resource (a saved report) and enumerates the payload (source records, reason groups, overlap-safe candidate counts). This is clearly distinguishable from report_list and report_page, though it never names those siblings to sharpen the boundary.

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 'Read a saved report' plus the hint that large reports return paging instructions, which gestures at report_page. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite that an id must come from report_list, and no stated exclusion.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new information: cost across tiers and a page-size ceiling. It does not describe pagination traversal behavior or what ordering to expect, so it neither contradicts nor fully supplements the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the return fields, then cost, then pagination limit. No sentence is wasted and nothing is buried.

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 simple paged list with no output schema, the description supplies the return fields, the cost model, and the page ceiling, which is most of what an agent needs. The gap is pagination mechanics (how offset interacts with the page limit), which is left implicit.

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%, so the two parameters (limit, offset) are only named in the schema. The description reinforces the limit ceiling ('up to 100 reports per page') but says nothing about offset semantics or how to advance pages. Partial compensation, not full.

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 states a specific verb (List) and resource (saved reports) and enumerates exactly what is returned: ids, timestamps, and unique candidate counts. It is not tautological. It stops short of naming the sibling it is not (report_get, report_page, report_export_csv), so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

'Free on both tiers' gives useful selection context, implying this cheap listing is the right entry point before a paid per-report call. However, it never explicitly says when to use this versus report_get, report_page, or report_export_csv, leaving the choice to inference.

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

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description need not repeat that. However, the description adds little beyond a cryptic note about preview ids expiring in 30 minutes. It doesn't explain pagination behavior, what 'free pages' means, or how the 'last two checks' relate to the preview id lifetime. This is insufficient behavioral context for a read tool with no output schema.

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 brief, but the second sentence about preview ids is confusing and lacks structure. It is not front-loaded with the tool's purpose; instead it leads with 'Read free pages' which is ambiguous.

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 no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the description fails to provide enough information for an agent to correctly use the tool. It does not clarify what sections correspond to which enum values, how id and preview ids work, or what the return data looks like.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the five parameters. The critical 'section' enum values are listed vaguely as 'records, group summaries, record reasons or one group's members', but the mapping to the actual enum values (records, groups, record_summaries, group_members) is unclear, and group_id, limit, offset, and the id format (including preview: prefix) are entirely unaddressed.

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 resource ('records, group summaries, record reasons or one group's members') but uses a vague verb 'Read' and does not clearly distinguish this tool from siblings like report_get or report_list. It's unclear whether this is a paginated viewer, an export, or something else specific.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as report_list or report_get. The description does not state prerequisites or conditions for invocation, leaving the agent to guess based on the name.

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