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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'governed and read-only exactly like `analyze`'. It adds value beyond the annotations by stating the return content (grouped rows + total) and the connected-account requirement, though it says nothing about cost, rate limits, or failure modes when the saved report is missing.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the action and then the return and the account requirement; nothing is redundant. It is slightly overloaded — the 'governed' phrasing is vague and adds little.

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 one-parameter, non-destructive read with full annotations and no output schema, the description covers action, data freshness, return content, and the auth prerequisite. Only edge behavior (unknown name, empty results, report-parameter overrides) is left implicit.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already defines `name` and points to `list_reports`. The description contributes only the qualifier 'by name on current data', which hints that the saved definition is re-executed rather than returning a cached snapshot, but gives no naming/format detail beyond 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Re-run a SAVED analytics report by name') plus the return shape ('grouped rows + total'), which separates it cleanly from save_report, list_reports, and analyze. An agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

It establishes the precondition ('Requires a connected Aurgus account') and equates behavior with the sibling `analyze`, and the schema points to `list_reports` for name discovery. What's missing is an explicit exclusion — e.g. when to use `analyze` for ad-hoc questions instead of a saved report.

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