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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds useful context: presentation toggles have server defaults when omitted, and layout is constrained (dashboard always grid). However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as error handling, idempotency, or authentication requirements. It adds moderate value beyond annotations, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the layout constraint and default behavior are stated efficiently. Every word earns its place. The description is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite having 19 parameters and nested objects, the description is minimal but the schema carries the heavy lifting with 100% coverage. The description adds the essential cross-cutting context (layout rules, server defaults) that the schema cannot express at the property level. An output schema exists, so return values do not need to be described. For a creation tool with this complexity, the description is reasonably complete, though it could mention that client_id and template_id reference list_clients and list_templates (though those are already in the schema).

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 19 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds extra meaning by clarifying the layout parameter's behavior (dashboard always grid) and the default behavior of presentation toggles when omitted. This goes beyond the schema's individual property descriptions, which is valuable given the number of boolean toggles. This justifies a 4 rather than a baseline 3.

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 ('Create'), a clear resource ('a new report or dashboard for a client'), and adds distinguishing constraints (report can use grid or canvas, dashboard is always grid). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like create_report_from_template, duplicate_report, and create_client_with_report without inspecting their schemas.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that create_report_from_template should be used when cloning a template, or that duplicate_report is for copying an existing report. The only implied guidance is that this is the generic create tool, but that is not stated. An agent could confuse it with create_report_from_template because both create reports.

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