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

While annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description goes much further: it discloses that every data widget is re-fetched and results are saved, that widgets on their own custom range are preserved, that rolling presets are stored as presets and re-resolved later, and that the re-fetch runs in the background. This is precisely the kind of behavioral context an agent needs to anticipate side effects.

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?

Three sentences, each packed with necessary information: the core purpose, the behavior for widgets and rolling presets, and the background execution with a pointer to get_widget_data. No filler or repetition, and the most important detail (what the tool does) 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?

Given the complexity of the nested date_range object and the presence of an output schema, the description covers everything needed to call the tool correctly: the effect on widgets, the rolling preset behavior, the background execution, and how to retrieve results. Annotation and schema already handle safety and parameter details, so nothing essential is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining how the date_range object behaves: widgets with custom ranges keep them, and rolling presets are re-resolved on later fetches. This clarifies the overall effect of setting date_range, going beyond field-level descriptions.

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 opens with the specific verb+resource ('Set the period a report covers'), immediately distinguishing this from sibling tools like get_widget_data by stating the action and its object. It also clarifies the scope: it affects all data widgets on the report unless they have their own custom range, which prevents confusion with other update tools.

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 clearly tells the agent to use get_widget_data with source_id set to the report to read the re-fetched results, which directly addresses the common post-action question. It implies when to use this tool (when changing a report's date range) but does not explicitly contrast it with other update tools like update_report, leaving a slight gap in exclusion guidance.

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