requery_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the write/action nature is covered structurally. The description adds useful context that this instructs remote agents to re-run a script 'now', but it does not explain what the destructive hint means in practice (data overwrite, irreversibility) or the async/remote nature of the trigger.

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 front-loaded sentence with no padding. The word 'agents' is slightly ambiguous (endpoint agents vs. caller agents), which keeps it from a top score.

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 an action tool flagged destructive with two undocumented parameters, the description is too thin; an output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the trigger semantics and destructive implications remain 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for org_id and report_id, yet it adds no explicit meaning beyond what the self-descriptive names imply. Neither parameter's format nor expected values are clarified.

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 action (re-run) on a specific resource (the report's data source script), which is clearer than a bare name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from related siblings such as run_script or list_report_data, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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 no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The agent is given the action but no context about when re-querying is warranted versus reading existing report data.

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