Build a one-day AGC report (Markdown)

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real behavior: each section degrades independently into a marked paragraph, and output is Markdown returned inline plus optionally persisted to outPath. One subtlety remains unaddressed — a file write side effect sits in slight tension with readOnlyHint, mitigated only by the optional outPath/overwrite parameters.

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, front-loading what the report contains, then the degradation and output behavior. Every clause carries information.

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 9 parameters, no output schema and rich annotations, the description is nearly sufficient: content, defaults, failure behavior and output destination are all covered. Auth/prerequisite context and the overwrite semantics are left to the schema.

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 89%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema: it explains that the 'report' enum drives the download/install section and ties platform/countries to the 'review snapshot', which is helpful given the opaque enum values.

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 ('Build a daily operations digest for one day') and enumerates exactly what the digest contains (7-day download/install trend, crash/app-freeze totals, review snapshot). This clearly separates it from agc_weekly_report by time window, though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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?

The description establishes context (a single-day consolidated digest, default yesterday) and that outPath writing is optional, giving implied usage. But it never states when to prefer this composite report over the granular siblings (agc_report_trend, agc_crash_summary, agc_reviews_list) or any exclusion.

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