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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's job is to add context — and it does, disclosing the ordering contract ('Pinned first, then most recently updated') and the access model ('reports you can open'). It stops short of describing pagination or result-size limits, which would matter for a list endpoint with openWorldHint=true.

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 scoping information is front-loaded, but the two sentences substantially duplicate each other: 'yours, shared with you' and 'JobMojito templates' appear verbatim in both, and the second sentence re-states the whole listing scope before adding the ordering detail. Roughly a sentence of redundancy for a short definition.

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?

With an output schema present, return-field explanation is not strictly required, and the description still adds the ordering semantics that the output schema would not convey. The gaps — no pagination or result-limit behavior — are minor given full annotation and schema coverage.

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 all three parameters (scope enum, merchant_id permissions, conversation_id protocol) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description only echoes the scope concept in prose ('yours, shared with you, templates') without adding format or constraint detail beyond it. Baseline 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 specific verb and resource ('List custom reports') and narrows scope precisely: reports you own, reports shared with you, and JobMojito templates. It also enumerates the returned fields (id, title, visibility, access, version), which separates it cleanly from get_report (single item), list_report_fields (field metadata) and run_report (execution).

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?

Usage is implied by the scope enumeration in the schema and by 'reports you can open,' but the description never says when to prefer this over get_report, list_report_fields, preview_report or run_report. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are given, so the agent must infer routing from the name alone.

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