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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: the listed reports compare the last 28 full days with the previous 28 days, and their requests can be passed directly to run_report.

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 three tight sentences with no waste. It front-loads the core action and then adds the run_report compatibility and time-comparison details that an agent needs for correct use.

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 annotations, complete input schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It also adds the important temporal context that the standard report requests compare the last 28 full days with the prior 28 days.

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 both server_name and container_id are already documented in the schema. The description only implies the container scope through 'one container' and adds no parameter-specific syntax or constraints beyond the schema.

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 gives a clear verb and resource: 'Lists the standard reports of one container' and enumerates the categories Audience, Acquisition, Behavior, and Conversions. It also ties the tool to the sibling run_report by explaining that each variant contains a request run_report accepts as-is, making its distinct role easy to identify.

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 makes the downstream usage explicit: list standard report variants, then pass their request to run_report. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over other report-related siblings such as get_report, but the intended workflow is clear.

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