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

Adds real behavioral constraints beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: max 1000 rows per page, pagination (offset > 0) requires an order, and operators are field-type dependent (dates GTE/LTE/EQUALS, ids EQUALS, strings CONTAINS/DOES_NOT_CONTAIN). The POST endpoint is disclosed, clarifying that a 'read' is transported as a POST. Return shape/row structure is not described, but no output schema exists so some gap remains.

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?

Front-loads the core action and read-only guarantee, then layers filter syntax, operator rules, and paging constraints without filler. Dense but every clause carries actionable information; the trailing endpoint is the least essential element.

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 6-parameter, fully schema-documented tool with no output schema, the description covers filtering, pagination, and row limits adequately. It omits what a returned row/page looks like (e.g., next_offset usage is only in the schema) and any auth/permission requirement.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning the schema lacks: the operator-varies-by-field-type rule and a concrete filter example in the report's own field namespace. It also surfaces the order-required-for-paging rule that connects offset and order parameters.

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 ('Run a saved report and return its rows') and clearly scopes it as read-only execution as distinct from chargeover_get_report (fetch definition) and chargeover_list_reports (enumerate). An agent can distinguish it from every sibling without opening a 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 to chargeover_get_report as the source of valid filter field names, which is the key prerequisite. It does not state an explicit 'do not use this if...' exclusion, but the workflow dependency is made concrete.

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