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

This is the description's greatest strength. It proactively informs the user about the data scope (metadata/approved fields only) and critical security exclusions (no secrets, contacts, or original files), which is essential for safety and expectations.

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?

The definition is highly concise. It uses a single sentence to cover both the operational scope (reading definitions) and the data security boundaries (metadata only), making zero use of unnecessary words.

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?

It is complete regarding the data it returns (what is included and excluded), but it is incomplete regarding the execution of the tool. An AI agent cannot form a complex or effective call because the input parameters lack any descriptive guidance.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides absolutely no semantic meaning for the input parameters (limit, query, offset). It does not explain what 'query' entails or what the purpose of the limit/offset controls.

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 name and description clearly state the purpose: listing 'report definitions'. It specifies it reads these definitions from the existing application, making the resource explicit.

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?

The description is adequate because the name is inherently descriptive, but it lacks detailed guidance on when to use this specific tool versus related list or retrieval tools. It doesn't suggest preconditions or optimal use cases for the API call.

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