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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the 'newest first' ordering, the fields surfaced, and the fact that returned report_ids are inputs to the other tools.

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 scope and ordering, then the cross-tool usage note. The enumerated return fields are slightly verbose but each conveys substantive information. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description is close to complete, with the only real gap being the unexplained limit parameter and its default/pagination 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 description coverage is 0% and the single optional 'limit' parameter (1-50) is never mentioned in the description, so nothing clarifies its meaning, default behavior, or what happens when it is omitted. The description does not compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Every campaign report in the connected workspace') with a clear ordering cue ('newest first') and enumerates the returned fields. It implicitly differentiates from get_latest_report by framing itself as the path to an 'older report', but never names that sibling directly.

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?

Offers one piece of routing advice: take a report_id from here and use it with the other tools. It implies the 'older report' use case versus get_latest_report but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and never names the alternative tool.

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