Read a page of complete matching evidence

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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only, idempotent profile, so the description earns credit for adding behavior they cannot express: unsaved previews expire after 30 minutes and only the last two large checks are retained. That is real operational context an agent could not infer elsewhere.

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 core action and followed by the prerequisite and the retention caveat. Slightly awkward phrasing ("free pages", "last two large checks") costs it the top mark 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?

There is no output schema, and the description never explains what a page returns or how pagination works (limit caps at 100, offset semantics), which matters for a paging tool. It does cover preview expiry, so it is adequate but leaves notable gaps for a 6-parameter reader.

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, so the description carries the full burden. It loosely covers `id` and hints at `section`/`sku` ("report issues, SKU rows or original source rows") but says nothing about limit, offset, or receipt_index, leaving half the parameter surface undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 a specific verb and resource (read pages of large report issues, SKU rows, or source rows) and roughly maps onto the section enum values. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like report_get or report_list, which is the main gap.

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?

"Use report_id from the paginated overview" points the agent at a prerequisite source, which is useful, but it names the field as report_id while the schema parameter is `id`, and it never says when to use report_page versus report_get or report_list. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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