Export an AGC report as parsed rows

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, openWorld=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: the 180-day window cap, the row cap with allRows=false default, and that outPath writes a raw CSV alongside the parsed rows.

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?

Purpose and output are front-loaded in the first sentence; the long report enumeration earns its space by disambiguating the report parameter, and the trailing constraints (window, cap, outPath) are compact and information-dense.

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 a 12-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the return shape (parsed rows plus optional CSV), the window limit, and the row cap. It does not elaborate on filters/groupBy interaction or report-specific extraQuery, though the schema carries descriptions for those.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real value beyond the schema by defining what each report enum member actually contains (e.g. harmony-download vs install-failed) and clarifying the window/cap semantics for allRows and outPath.

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 (export) and resource (AGC operations report) with the output form (parsed rows). The 16-item report enumeration makes the tool's scope unambiguous, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling report tools like agc_daily_report or agc_report_trend.

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 report list and the 180-day window note imply when this tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance against the many sibling report tools (agc_daily_report, agc_weekly_report, agc_report_trend). Usage must be inferred.

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