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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotated context: plan gating (paid-plan-only dei_metrics) and per-action parameter requirements. It says nothing about pagination limits, throttling, or auth scopes beyond plan tier.

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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by a single dense enumeration of actions; almost every clause carries distinct information. The one long sentence is slightly hard to scan, but no content is wasted.

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 no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description does the heavy lifting by describing what each mode returns (counts, demographic breakdowns, full report content, generation status, past reports, seeded templates). Missing only edge details such as pagination behavior and the meaning of 'take' bounds.

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%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: every enum value is explained and the reportId dependency for report_data/report_status plus the optional take for report_history are stated. It does not explain take's 1-100 bound or reportId's UUID format, which the schema covers structurally but never describes.

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 ('Read reports and dashboards') and then enumerates all seven action modes with distinct meanings, so the agent knows exactly what each call returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling reports_manage, relying on 'Read' vs 'manage' to imply the read-only boundary.

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?

Gives per-action selection context: dei_metrics is for paid plans only, dashboard_metrics is available on every plan, report_data and report_status require reportId, report_history takes an optional take limit. It stops short of naming an alternative tool (e.g., reports_manage) or stating when not to use this tool.

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