direct.report

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, but it only notes 'raw output'. It does not disclose authentication requirements (Direct Client-Login implied by account_id/direct_client_login params), rate limits, whether a report is generated server-side, how long it takes, or what happens on invalid params. This is a major gap for a 16-param report tool.

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 a single sentence, so there is no structural issue, but with such complex parameters and no output schema, that brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness. Every sentence earns its place only in the sense that there is just one.

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 16 parameters, nested objects (params, selection_criteria, order_by), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not tell an agent how to construct a call, what a valid report_type looks like, or what the raw output contains.

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 only 38% (6 of 16 params described). The description contributes zero parameter detail. Critical required params field_names and report_type, plus format, date_range_type, report_name, include_vat, include_discount, goals, attribution_models, date_from/date_to, and order_by, are undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 'Run a Direct report (raw output)' restates the tool name with a minimal qualifier. It states a verb (Run) and a resource (Direct report) but does not differentiate from siblings like direct.hf.report_performance or metrica.report, and the parenthetical is ambiguous. It is close to a tautology.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the numerous report-oriented siblings (direct.hf.report_performance, direct.hf.report_keywords, metrica.report, direct.raw_call, etc.) or on prerequisites like authentication. An agent has no basis to select this over direct.raw_call or direct.hf.report_adgroups.

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