generate_report

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and idempotent with destructiveHint=false. The description adds the report type list and date-range scoping but does not disclose output structure, pagination, or rate limits. This is adequate given annotation coverage, but not rich.

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 one sentence plus a list, front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words or redundant details.

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 full schema coverage and annotations indicating a safe read operation, the description covers the essentials. However, it omits what the returned report contains or how to interpret it, and does not mention relationships to sibling analytics tools. This leaves some gaps for a tool with no output schema.

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 documents all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description repeats the report type enum values without adding significant new semantics beyond clarifying the send_time_heatmap report. Baseline applies since the schema carries the load.

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 tool generates a structured analytics report over a date range, listing four specific report types. This provides a specific verb ('generate') and resource ('structured analytics report') with scope, and the report types help distinguish it from sibling tools like get_analytics, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_analytics or run_deliverability_audit. It only describes what the tool does, not the context in which it should be preferred.

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