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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by enumerating the report attributes returned (kind, value, unit, date, author), effectively standing in for the absent output schema, but says nothing about ordering, result volume, or what an empty set means.

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?

A single compact sentence with the scope front-loaded and zero filler. It is a sentence fragment without a verb, but every clause carries information.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool the description does most of the work, notably enumerating return fields in place of a missing output schema. It falls short on the limit/pagination parameter and on result ordering, which an agent needs to page correctly.

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 must carry the burden. It only vaguely implies assignment_id via 'against one assignment' and gives no meaning at all for the 'limit' parameter (1-100 pagination), leaving an agent to guess the paging behavior.

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 names the specific resource ('reports') and its scope ('filed against one assignment'), plus the fields each report carries. Combined with the title 'List reports' the action is unambiguous, though it never states the verb itself and does not distinguish itself from siblings such as erp_list_report_types.

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 only implied: 'filed against one assignment' signals this is the tool to reach for when you already hold an assignment and want its reports, but there is no explicit when-to-use framing and no alternative is named or excluded.

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