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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful operational behavior beyond annotations: dates default to the report's own timeframe ending today, and narrower ranges reduce truncation. No contradiction with 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?

Two front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core purpose appears first, followed by the essential selector and date behavior. 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?

With a fully described 5-parameter schema, an output schema, and annotations covering read-only/idempotent behavior, the description is complete enough to call the tool correctly. It adds the remaining non-obvious context: report scope, date defaults, and truncation behavior.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: 'exactly one of report_id and template_key' clarifies mutually exclusive selection, and 'narrower ranges reduce truncation' gives practical date-range guidance not present in the 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 states a specific action ('Generate the data for any report over a date range') and a clear resource ('any report'), with the dashboard comparison anchoring its meaning. It differentiates itself from the many metric-specific get_* siblings by covering saved/custom reports and built-in templates.

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 this is the general report-data tool ('the same numbers the dashboard shows') and explains the report selector, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer generate_report over the get_*/run_* siblings or when not to use it. Usage context is present but left to inference.

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