list_report_data

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return envelope {total, offset, has_more, items}, the limit default of 20 with a max of 200, and the fact that `contains` is applied server-side over item fields. It does not state auth/permission requirements, which is a minor gap for a read 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?

Two dense sentences with zero filler: the return shape and paging advice come first, then the non-obvious `contains` semantics. Nothing is redundant with the schema or the name.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the page envelope and has_more flag, which is what an agent needs to page correctly. Combined with the max-limit and filter semantics, it is nearly complete; only permission requirements and behavior for large reports are unaddressed.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden and does substantively: `contains` is explained as a server-side text filter on item fields with concrete examples (CVE id, product name), and `limit` is given both default and ceiling. offset/org_id/report_id are left to name inference, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get the rows of a report for an organization'), which is meaningfully distinct from listing report metadata. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling it is not (list_reports, get_report_or_category), so an agent must still infer the boundary, but the resource is precise.

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?

Gives real usage guidance for pagination ('check `total` before paging through everything'), which is genuinely actionable. However, it offers no when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to list_reports, get_report_or_category, or requery_report, so tool selection among siblings is left to inference.

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