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 fully covered. The description adds the taxonomy of what the listing contains and that ids are generation-ready, which is consistent with the closed-world annotation. It adds no further behavioral detail (ordering, pagination, or how items are mixed when type is omitted), but with strong annotations plus an output schema present, this is an acceptable level of disclosure.

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 totaling roughly 30 words, with the core action ('List every report available to this store') front-loaded in the first sentence and the output's purpose in the second. There is no repetition of the title and no filler; every clause 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 zero-required-parameter listing tool with full schema coverage, comprehensive annotations, and an output schema present, the description is nearly complete. The only meaningful gap is the absence of an explicit pointer to the consuming sibling (generate_report) to close the workflow loop, which the phrase 'available for generation' partially mitigates.

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%: both the type enum (with semantics for each value) and include_archived (with default and behavior) are fully documented in the schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description reinforces the enum taxonomy (template=catalogue, custom=saved) and explains what returned identifiers mean, adding modest value beyond the schema without contradicting 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 uses a specific verb+resource pair ('List every report available to this store') and enumerates the three output categories (saved template reports, custom reports, built-in template catalogue), which distinguishes it from sibling list_* tools like list_customers, list_cogs, and list_capabilities by resource type. The final sentence ties returned ids to 'generation,' implicitly contrasting with generate_report. It stops short of 5 because of a minor vocabulary overlap between 'saved template reports' and the 'template' type enum.

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 a list-then-generate workflow ('Each returned report id or template key identifies a report available for generation') and clarifies the tool's scope (reports, not stores/customers/cogs). However, it never names an alternative tool (e.g., generate_report) nor states when NOT to use this tool, leaving routing decisions to agent inference rather than explicit guidance.

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