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

The description discloses that cloning copies pages + widgets, which reveals the operation's scope beyond the annotations' readOnlyHint=false/destructiveHint=false. This tells the agent the new report will inherit the template's structure. It does not contradict any annotation. Minor gap: it doesn't specify behavior on type mismatch, though the schema's 'must match the template' partially covers this.

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 with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence delivers the prerequisite workflow plus a concrete filter example. Every clause earns its place.

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 output schema exists (so return values need no explanation), the description covers purpose, prerequisite workflow, and filtering guidance. All four required params are documented in the schema. The only minor omission is explicit mention that type must match the template's type, though this appears in the schema's type description, so nothing critical 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the template_id parameter's provenance workflow (find via list_templates, filter by datasources + type) and clarifies that the resulting report contains the template's pages and widgets. The concrete filtering example adds value beyond the schema 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 states a specific verb (create), resource (report or dashboard), scope (for an existing client), and mechanism (cloning a template's pages + widgets). It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_report (build from scratch) and duplicate_report (copy an existing report rather than a template) by making the template-cloning behavior explicit.

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 gives a clear prerequisite workflow: find the template first with list_templates, then filter by datasources + type. It includes a concrete example (datasources=gadw, type=DASHBOARD for Google Ads), which tells the agent exactly how to precede this call. It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer create_report or duplicate_report over this tool, but the workflow guidance is strong.

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