Run Report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether report execution is read-only, has side effects, requires specific permissions, or how results are returned. The minimal wording omits important details for an execution tool.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded and to the point. Every word contributes to the core purpose, though 'get results' is somewhat vague and would benefit from additional specificity without compromising conciseness.

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?

The tool has no output schema and minimal annotations, yet the description does not compensate by explaining return formats, filter usage, or report name conventions. For an execution tool with this complexity, the description is incomplete and leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 documents both parameters (report_name and filters) with full coverage, so the description adds no new semantic meaning. The schema describes filters only as an object, and the description does not clarify filter keys or structure, but the baseline for high schema coverage is met.

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 uses a specific verb ('execute') with a clear resource ('ERPNext report') and outcome ('get results'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which all focus on document/doctype operations rather than report execution, though it does not specify types of reports or any unique scope.

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 guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. The tool is unique among siblings (no other report tool), which implies its use for report execution, but the description does not explicitly state usage context or exclusions.

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