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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it pulls from a synced DB and returns JSON rather than a PDF, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explain the large parameter surface, potential side effects (e.g., confirm/dry_run flags), or what the report contains beyond the output schema. Given the 34 parameters and low schema description coverage, more behavioral detail would be expected.

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 description is two sentences and front-loads the core purpose: building a report JSON. The second sentence adds implementation context without excessive verbosity. It could be slightly more informative about usage, but it is appropriately sized and avoids filler.

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?

Given the tool has 34 input parameters with no schema descriptions, a concise purpose statement is insufficient. The description does not explain which parameters are relevant for report generation versus automation rules, nor does it provide usage guidance. Although an output schema exists, the input-side context is critically incomplete.

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 has 34 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning none of the parameters are documented in the schema. The description says nothing about any parameter's meaning, format, or relevance to the report generation. Even with an output schema, the input parameters are completely unexplained, leaving the agent unable to determine how to use most of them.

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 description states a specific verb and resource: 'Build a Kampalo performance report JSON'. It also distinguishes the output format by saying '(no PDF)', which helps differentiate from a PDF-based report tool. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like automate_email_report, which also produces reports, so it falls short of a full 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions an internal endpoint, but that does not help an agent decide between this and other report or automation tools. There is no indication of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions.

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