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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the tenant-scoping constraint ('caller's organisation'), which is useful auth/visibility context. It stops short of describing ordering or return shape.

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, with the resource and scope front-loaded and the filters following. No filler, though the filter list is dense enough that it slightly crowds the sentence.

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 simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage, no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers resource, scope, and filters. Ordering and return-shape details are absent but are minor for this tool class.

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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the actual enum values for `kind` (overview|seo_audit|rankings|competitors|ai_visibility) that the schema merely labels 'Optional kind filter' – genuine value beyond the structured field.

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 (List) and resource (stored report runs) scoped to the caller's organisation, which separates it from the many get_* single-resource siblings. It is clear, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the nearest alternative, get_score_history.

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 is implied by naming the two optional filters, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance or reference to an alternative tool. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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