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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), the description contributes two behavioral traits: results include other callers' activity due to the shared workspace, and the POST method exists because the query goes in the body. This is genuinely useful context over the structured metadata.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence contributes scope or method context. The second sentence is slightly verbose ('the methodology reflects that the query goes in the body') but not wastefully so.

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?

Given 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and strong annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description provides the key missing context—shared workspace behavior and the method/read mismatch. It does not spell out how the 6 optional parameters combine to produce a valid report, but this is not a required gap.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains each of the 6 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the overall statement that the query goes in the body, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opening sentence specifies the exact action and resource: run an analytics report and get its rows back. It further distinguishes itself from the many POST siblings by explaining that despite the method, it reads rather than writes, and it flags that results cover the shared workspace.

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?

The description implies the obvious usage—call it when you need analytics report rows—but it names no alternatives, gives no when-not guidance, and leaves the agent to infer when this should be preferred over the many search and batch tools nearby.

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