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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), the description adds real operational context: mandatory roles/memberships/owner approvals, the preview-before-approval workflow, and required scope strings. The 'reuse the same idempotency key' advice complements rather than contradicts idempotentHint=false (client-supplied dedup for a non-idempotent call).

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?

It opens with authentication plumbing rather than purpose, and includes low-value jargon ('stay distinct') plus scope rules belonging to other tools. Five dense sentences where a front-loaded statement of what generate/configure do would earn far more.

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 needn't be explained, but with 0% parameter documentation and no explanation of the oneOf command variants, an agent cannot reliably construct a valid call. The approval/idempotency context is present; the command semantics are entirely absent.

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%, so the description carries the full burden — and it does not explain any parameter. The 'generate' vs 'configure' actions, partnerId, installationId, expectedRevision, recipients and cadence are all undocumented; only the idempotencyKey's reuse pattern is hinted at.

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 generic verb 'Manage reports' plus an unclear scope sentence ('Configuration, test proof, activation, collection and outcomes stay distinct') never states what the tool concretely does — the schema's real actions (generate, configure) are never named. It does identify the resource ('reports') and the service, but it does nothing to distinguish this tool from reports-adjacent siblings like agency_billing_periods, agency_care or list_evals.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance. The scope sentences (agents:write, evals:write, sms:write) reference other surfaces rather than selecting this tool, and 'Bootstrap and owner self-service use verified dashboard sessions' only vaguely implies a boundary without telling the agent which tool to call instead.

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