get_report_builder_standard_reports

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does signal a read-only operation through 'List' and 'GET'. However, it does not disclose required header names, authentication needs, pagination behavior, or clarify what 'route IDs in path_params' means given the endpoint path has no visible path 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?

The description is two short sentences with the endpoint front-loaded and no filler. Minor awkwardness in 'List standard report Calls ...' aside, it is compact and scannable.

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 tool with no annotations and four generic schema containers, this description leaves significant gaps: no alternatives, no required-header names, no query-key syntax, and unclear path-parameter semantics. The output schema may cover return values, but invocation details are only partially specified.

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 must compensate, and it does assign roles to the generic containers: route IDs in path_params, filters/pagination in query, headers in headers. But it never names actual parameters or formats, leaving an agent with only placeholders like 'filters' and 'pagination' rather than usable query keys.

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 verb ('List') and a distinct resource ('standard reports') and gives the exact endpoint, GET /report_builder/standard_reports. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling report-builder tools such as get_report_builder_get_standard_report_settings and get_report_builder_create_report_job.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools are mentioned. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and endpoint, since the rest of the description is only about how to place parameters.

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