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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the returned shape (name plus what each report measures) and the connection prerequisite, which the annotations do not convey.

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, both front-loaded with the essential noun and the alternative. No filler, no restatement of the title, and the prerequisite is tucked into a single clause rather than expanded into prose.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by naming the fields each entry carries, and it states the account prerequisite needed before the call can succeed. Minor gaps (ordering, whether the list is paginated or empty-state behavior) are not addressed but are low-risk for a zero-param tenant-scoped list.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The schema is empty and closed (additionalProperties=false), consistent with the description's no-argument usage.

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 (list) and resource (saved analytics reports) plus scope (on this tenant) and even what each item contains (name + what each measures). It is clearly distinguishable from run_report, the sibling that executes a report rather than enumerating them.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use run_report with a name to re-run one, which is the natural next step after listing. It also states a prerequisite (a connected Aurgus account). It stops short of an explicit when-not, but for a zero-param enumeration tool the routing is effectively complete.

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