list_reports

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the rest. It discloses the return envelope {total, offset, has_more, items}, the limit default of 20 with a max of 200, and that 'contains' is a server-side filter on item fields – solid behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then return shape, then the filter/paging tip. No filler, though the parenthetical CVE/product example is slightly tangential to a reports list.

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, the description usefully specifies the return envelope and pagination semantics, plus the filter behavior. It is close to complete for a read-only list tool, missing only explicit routing guidance versus sibling listers.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains 'contains' as a server-side text filter over item fields and documents limit's default and cap. 'offset' is only implied by the return shape rather than explained, leaving a small gap.

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 and resource ('List available reports and report categories'), which is clearer than a bare name restatement. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like list_report_data or get_report_or_category, but the mention of 'report categories' provides meaningful scope.

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?

Provides operational guidance on filtering ('contains' is a server-side filter) and paging ('check total before paging through everything'), which is genuinely useful. However, it never states when to use this tool versus list_report_data, get_report_or_category, or list_report_errors, so tool selection 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.