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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying included widget types, excluded widget types, and returned fields (Name, Type, TypeDesc, Size, Hash), though it does not cover auth, rate limits, or error behavior.

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?

It is a single dense sentence plus the API endpoint, front-loading the included widget types and returned fields. Every clause earns its place, with 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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields and excludes non-returned widget types, so the agent knows what to expect. It omits response container or pagination details, but given the simple one-parameter contract, it is nearly complete.

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%, and the sole report parameter is fully documented in the schema with hash/URL-title format and a pointer to wufoo_list_reports. The description only repeats the identifier in the endpoint template, adding no new parameter meaning 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 states the resource (report widgets), the exact widget types included (chart, graph pie/bar/line, big-number), and explicitly excludes text/datagrid widgets. This lets an agent distinguish it from sibling report tools without opening each 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?

Usage is strongly implied: call this when you need widget metadata for a report, and the exclusion tells you not to use it for text or datagrid widgets. However, it does not name sibling alternatives or state prerequisites beyond the required report identifier.

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