unlock_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the cost (credits), idempotency ('never charges twice'), and return value ('Returns the full report'). It also reveals an important behavioral nuance: 'The verdict stays on the website — you are the analyst here,' clarifying that the tool does not change the verdict and the agent must perform analysis.

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 yet information-dense, with every sentence serving a purpose: purpose, cost, consent, idempotency, return value, and analyst role. It is well-structured and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is comprehensive. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, cost implications, idempotency, return value, and a critical behavioral caveat. The absence of error handling details is acceptable given the straightforward nature of the tool.

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 description does not explain the 'slug' parameter, leaving its meaning and source implicit. It mentions 'from read_report' regarding the cost field, but does not explicitly say the slug comes from there or describe its format. With zero schema coverage, this is a notable 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?

The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Permanently unlock a report's full timeline, evidence and SEO detail for this account.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_report by adding the 'unlock' verb and specifying what is unlocked. Although it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the purpose 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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: quote the exact price from the report's timelineLocked.cost field and 'call this ONLY after they explicitly agree to spend.' This clearly sets the precondition and distinguishes from read-only siblings. It also notes idempotency, instructing that already-unlocked reports won't be charged twice.

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