list_my_reports

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; on top of that the description adds concrete behavioral context: pagination support and a 'first version' without mutation or export. This extra context helps the agent understand current limitations without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, the first stating the purpose and the second adding a useful limitation. No filler or redundant schema repetition.

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 two-optional-parameter listing endpoint with strong annotations, the description covers scope (connected hunter's reports), a behavioral limitation (no mutation/export), and pagination. It does not describe output fields, but no output schema exists and the return concept is straightforward enough for invocation.

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%, but the description's 'pagination' mention plus the self-explanatory page and page_size names and their schema constraints make the parameters understandable. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema and does not fully compensate for missing parameter descriptions.

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 concrete action and resource: 'Liste les rapports soumis par le hunter connecté' (list reports submitted by the connected hunter), which clearly identifies a read-only listing of the caller's reports. It is distinct from singular get_my_report and program-related siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from search_my_reports, so it falls short of a fully differentiating 5.

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 pagination and no-mutation/no-export notes imply this tool is for simple paginated read access, but the description never states when to prefer it over search_my_reports, get_my_report, or my_report_status_counts. Usage is inferred rather than made explicit.

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