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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: Deleted/trash reports are excluded by default, and each returned report carries a deleted: true/false marker, plus the fact that ids are the return payload. No pagination or ordering details, though.

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 tight sentences: the primary action and return value come first, the trash/edge-case behavior second. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information (what you get back and how to use it) is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the return-value burden by naming report ids and the deleted flag. Combined with annotations covering safety, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the clientId filter and the includeDeleted/trash semantics without adding format, id shape, or default behavior beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the reports in your workspace') plus the scoping option (filter to one client), which cleanly separates it from create_report, get_report, and get_report_data. An agent can pick this tool without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent forward: the returned ids are 'for get_report / get_report_data', so the list-then-fetch workflow is clear. It also states the includeDeleted condition for trashed reports. It stops short of stating when not to use this tool (e.g., when you already know the report id), so not a full 5.

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