list_report_errors

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds the return envelope ({total, offset, has_more, items}), the pagination bounds (default 20, max 200), and that `contains` is a server-side filter on the items' own fields. That is substantive behavior beyond the annotation, though nothing is said about error content shape or rate limits.

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?

A single tightly packed paragraph, front-loaded with the purpose and then pagination and filter details. Every sentence carries information, though the backtick-laden filter sentence is dense enough to slow reading.

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?

With no output schema, zero annotation detail beyond read-only, and 0% schema coverage on 5 params, the description carries the full burden. It covers the return envelope and one parameter but leaves the identity/paging parameters unexplained for an agent that cannot fall back on structured docs.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains `limit` bounds and `contains` semantics well, but says nothing about `org_id`, `report_id`, or `offset`, leaving three parameters entirely undocumented.

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 gives a precise verb+resource+scope: endpoints where a report's data source script failed, including the error. This implicitly separates it from list_report_data (which returns successful data), but no sibling is named, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is operational guidance ('check `total` before paging through everything') but no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance against siblings like list_report_data or requery_report. Usage is implied by the narrow purpose rather than stated.

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