generate_professional_report

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation (write operation with potential side effects). The description adds context by specifying output formats and data source, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether reports are saved automatically, if generation is asynchronous, rate limits, or authentication requirements. With annotations providing basic safety profile, the description adds some value but lacks rich behavioral details.

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?

Single sentence that efficiently conveys core functionality: action (generate), resource (reports), formats, and data source. No wasted words, perfectly front-loaded with the essential information. Every word earns its place.

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 complex tool with 12 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and annotations covering only basic hints, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does at a high level but doesn't address important context like report structure, generation process, error handling, or how outputs are delivered. Given the complexity, more completeness would be helpful.

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 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description mentions 'multiple formats' and 'Microsoft 365 data', which aligns with 'outputFormats' and the data-oriented parameters, but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb 'Generate' and the resource 'comprehensive professional reports', specifying output formats (PowerPoint, Word, HTML, PDF) and data source (Microsoft 365 data). It distinguishes from simpler siblings like 'generate_html_report' or 'generate_word_document' by offering multiple formats and data integration, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'generate_audit_reports' which might overlap in purpose.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'generate_audit_reports' or other report-generation siblings. The description implies usage for professional reports from Microsoft 365 data, but lacks context on prerequisites, target audiences, or scenarios where this is preferred over simpler single-format tools.

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