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

Beyond the readOnly annotation, the description discloses critical behavior: showing saves nothing, saving happens from the card or through create_record, the agent must not claim a View is saved until save succeeds, source_view_id updates existing Views rather than creating twins, zero-row results must be stated, and money is in minor units. These are exactly the behavioral details an agent needs to avoid user-facing errors.

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?

The description is dense but well front-loaded: core purpose first, then argument mapping, save behavior, revision handling, zero-row caveat, money units, guide link, and a when-to-use/example block. Every sentence adds operational value and there is 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?

Given that an output schema exists and annotations cover the read-only safety profile, the description supplies the remaining context an agent needs: how to choose between report_id and definition, what showing does and does not save, how revisions should be handled, zero-row reporting, and money-unit behavior.

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 already 100%, so the schema documents all four parameters. The description still adds useful meaning by tying parameters to run_report arguments/results, clarifying report_id as saved data versus definition as inline ReportSpec/composition, and emphasizing source_view_id's role in updating an existing View rather than creating a duplicate.

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: display an analysis/dashboard as a card, or text rows when cards are unavailable. It explicitly distinguishes itself from run_report and explains what data sources it accepts, so an agent can identify its role without opening the 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('The user asks to see, chart or keep an analysis'), names the alternative for the agent's own reading ('use run_report'), and explains the save path via the card or create_record. The example further clarifies intended use.

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