bc_run_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and excels. It discloses that the report runs server-side, internally drives the BC 'Send to...' flow, selects formats via SaveValue, fetches files from DynamicFileHandler.axd, saves to disk when BC_REPORT_DIR is set, and returns errors listing available formats if the requested format is unavailable.

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 long but densely informative. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, then methodically covers the request-page flow, format-capture flow, environmental side effect, format availability caveat, usage exclusions, and examples. Every sentence contributes necessary context, with no filler.

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?

Despite the absence of an output schema, the description fully explains return values (requestPage fields, download.bytes, contentType, fileName, savedPath) and how to integrate with sibling tools (bc_write_data, bc_respond_dialog). It also lists common report IDs, making the tool immediately actionable.

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?

The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value with concrete usage examples, the behavior when format is omitted, and nuanced format selection rules ('pdf' is default, 'excel' prefers data-only, 'word' targets options containing 'Word'), justifying a 4.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Execute a Business Central report by its numeric report ID.' It clearly distinguishes reports from pages and explicitly names alternative tools for data retrieval, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's role.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this tool for reports that perform server-side actions... or to inspect and fill request page parameters.' It also states when not to use it: 'Do NOT use for viewing data -- use bc_open_page and bc_read_data,' and names concrete alternatives.

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