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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the ownership scoping, sort order, and the returned field set, and explicitly warns that the HTML body is not included. It stops short of describing pagination behavior or the auth requirement beyond 'authenticated user'.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the scope and ordering, then the return shape, then the alternative. No filler and every clause carries information.

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 and no annotations, so the description's return-field summary is genuinely load-bearing and covers the essentials for a zero-required-param list tool. It could say more about empty results or how cursors behave across concurrent updates, but nothing critical is missing.

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%, so limit and cursor are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, default, or cap detail beyond what the structured fields provide, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 precise verb+resource ('List reports'), adds the scope ('the authenticated user owns') and the ordering ('most-recently-updated first'), which cleanly separates it from search_reports and list_report_assets. An agent can identify the operation 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?

Explicitly routes to get_report for fetching a report body and implies the read-only listing context, but it never distinguishes this from the closest sibling, search_reports, which an agent could easily confuse with a plain list. Clear context, incomplete alternative coverage.

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