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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the sort order and the fact that each row includes its view URL and granted clients. It stops short of describing pagination or what happens when more than 100 reports exist.

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, zero filler. The scoping and payload facts come first, then the routing guidance, so the most important material is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still summarizes them. For a read-only listing tool with one optional parameter this is nearly complete; only the limit/truncation behavior is left unaddressed.

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% for the single 'limit' parameter, and the description never mentions it. The schema carries the type, default, and min/max bounds, so the field is usable, but the description does not explain truncation or paging behavior, which matters given there is no cursor parameter. Baseline is three when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Lists the shareable reports saved on the account') and additionally pins down ordering ('newest first') and payload ('view URL and the clients currently granted access'). This is clearly distinguishable from neighbors like list_report_clients and create_shared_report.

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 names the two follow-up tools this feeds (manage_report_access, delete_shared_report) and gives the selecting condition for each use case ('find a reportId' vs 'audit who can see which report'). No inference required.

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