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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the return contract (run_tool plus run_input deliberately without dates) and the error contract (issues returned instead of run_input, with the reason to repair). That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for a two-step workflow and is not derivable from the annotations.

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 key insight that this returns a tool reference rather than results, and every sentence contributes. The middle sentence is dense with semicolon-chained clauses and a nested example, which slightly taxes readability.

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 two-step dispatch tool with an output schema, the description still covers what an agent most needs: what comes back, why dates are omitted, how to proceed, and what happens when the saved report is broken. Nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and both parameters already document their source tools, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no per-parameter detail; its mentions of date range, preset, and compare refer to the downstream run_input rather than to this tool's inputs, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('rerun a saved report') and immediately clarifies the actual mechanic: it does not execute the query but returns run_tool and run_input. Naming the three possible run_tool values (d8a_run_query, d8a_run_funnel, d8a_run_paths) cleanly separates it from those siblings.

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 an explicit sequence: add a date range or preset, optionally compare, then call run_tool, and notes the input may be adjusted first (e.g. adding a time_bucket column). It also covers the blocked case where issues prevent a run_input from being returned, so an agent knows both the happy and failure paths.

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