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

The description adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: the snapshot is built synchronously (so the call blocks until analytics are ready) and the data source is the workspace's connected accounts. However, its explicit claim that a repeat call with the same idempotency_key returns the original result describes idempotent semantics, which conflicts with the annotation idempotentHint=false, leaving the agent unsure whether duplicate calls are safe. The core create/read profile (readOnlyHint=false) is consistent, but the idempotency claim is a genuine conflict.

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 dense sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the action and resource before the mechanism and retry caveat. Nothing in the text is redundant with the title or annotations.

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 12-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, the blocking snapshot build, and retry behavior, which is enough to call it. It is incomplete on the optional shaping parameters (sections, templateId, commentary) and on the workspace requirement for content creation, both of which are only partially covered by 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 only 25% across 12 parameters. The description explains the date-range inputs and the meaning of idempotency_key ('same key returns original result'), but says nothing about brand_id, sections, commentary, templateId, includeComparison, workspace_id, or the opaque body/query override objects, so most parameters remain semantically undocumented.

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 and resource ('Create a report') and adds the mechanism ('synchronously build its analytics snapshot from the workspace's connected accounts'), so the agent knows this is a report-creation tool with an immediate snapshot build. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as aidelly_create_report_link, aidelly_create_report_schedule, or aidelly_get_report, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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?

Usage context is implied: it is for producing a report over a date range using the workspace's connected accounts, and the retry-safe note tells the agent how to re-issue a call. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over create_report_schedule (recurring), create_report_link (sharing), or when not to call it, so routing is left to inference.

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