List reports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds non-derivable facts: reads are free, it never generates a report, and quick-depth reports leave certain fields blank and 'Needs full research' rather than being findings. That last point is real interpretive context that prevents an agent from misreading the payload. It does not cover rate limits or auth scope, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then clearly sectioned Args, Returns and Use when blocks. The Report field enumeration is long but justified because there is no output schema; nothing reads as filler. Slightly heavy for a list tool, keeping it from a 5.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does so: it documents the JSON envelope, pagination fields, per-report fields, status values, and the depth distinction. Combined with the 'Use when' routing, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds workflow meaning the schema lacks: project_id requires first calling list_projects for the UUID, and limit/offset are framed as page size and pagination offset with defaults restated. The uuid/format and bounds detail lives in the schema and is not duplicated.

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 the competitive-intelligence reports'), adds scope ('in YOUR Rivalize account'), ordering ('newest first'), and explicitly disclaims report generation, which separates it from generation/teardown siblings. An agent can distinguish it from get_report or get_battlecard without opening a schema.

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 an explicit 'Use when' trigger with two concrete query phrasings, states the prerequisite for project_id ('Call list_projects first for the id'), and routes the follow-up ('Use the returned id with get_report'). Both the entry condition and the alternative for single-report retrieval are named.

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