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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds some value by noting that email, forms and journeys data only appears when email marketing is enabled, but says nothing about permissions, default range behavior when nothing is passed, or result granularity.

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 what the tool returns and followed by the supported range forms. The first sentence is a long parenthetical list, but every element earns its place as an inventory of returned metrics.

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 reporting tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates the metric categories returned rather than restating the schema. It is nearly complete, though it omits the default range behavior and any indication of how the returned figures are structured or scoped to the workspace/product.

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 100%, with each of the four parameters documented in the schema itself (including the 30-day default and YYYY-MM-DD format). The description largely restates those same range options rather than clarifying precedence between days and from/to or explaining productId scoping, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear resource (the Reports page figures) and enumerates the metric families covered: support conversations, response/resolution times, AI resolutions, topics, help center, and conditionally email/forms/journeys. However, it never distinguishes this tool from close siblings such as report_summary, get_journey_performance, or get_proactive_message_report, leaving overlap ambiguous.

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 days 7, 30 or 90, or from and to dates" gives implied invocation context for the range parameters, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance and no exclusions. With several reporting siblings in the roster, the omission of routing guidance is a real gap.

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