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

The annotations provide limited safety information (all hints false), so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state 'Create', implying a mutation, but it does not explain side effects, permission requirements, the report's visibility, or whether it can overwrite existing reports. No additional behavioral context is provided beyond the basic create action.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences: the first clearly states the purpose, and the second lists capabilities and date filter examples. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary filler. The second sentence is a slightly dense enumeration ending with 'etc.', but it remains efficient and to the point.

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?

With 16 parameters and no output schema, the description provides only a high-level feature overview and does not explain parameter interrelationships (e.g., total_by_group requiring total_by_group_column_id) or prerequisites beyond what the schema already provides. The schema is detailed, but the description alone is not fully sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full context, though it is adequate when combined with 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% with thorough descriptions for all 16 parameters, including detailed guidance for criterias and no_data_text. The tool description adds only a high-level mention of date filters and grouping, which is already fully covered in the schema. Per the baseline rule, a score of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the action 'Create' and the resource 'report (filter/view) for the form', with a specific verb+resource pair. It further distinguishes itself from siblings like create_chart and create_saved_view by enumerating unique capabilities: filtering, grouping, sum/average by group, visible columns, and sorting. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and well-differentiated.

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 implicitly indicates when to use the tool ('for a form' and supporting grouping/summaries), but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like create_saved_view or create_chart, nor does it provide exclusions or preconditions such as requiring an existing form. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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