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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description goes beyond by specifying the returned fields (id, name, kind, status, nextRunDate, destination counts, lastRunHealth), confirming on-demand reports are included, and documenting the includeArchived default. It does not address pagination or permission requirements, but given the strong annotations this is sufficient.

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 compact and front-loaded with the essential purpose, followed by a field list, filters, a short read-only note, and an example. Every sentence contributes; there is no filler.

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?

For a list operation with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return fields and filters. It does not mention pagination or potential size limits, but the tool's simplicity and the provided field list make it complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete usage example ({ kind: 'SCHEDULED' }) and restates filter semantics, which slightly enhances the parameter understanding 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'List compact report summaries.' It defines the output fields and states the scope ('for the organization'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling report-execution tools like get_report_execution, run_report_now, and update_report. It also clarifies inclusion of on-demand reports.

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 establishes when to use this tool (when you need a compact overview of reports) and lists available filters, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives (e.g., use get_report_execution for full details). The read-only hint is clear context.

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