run_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool validates against a report catalog before calling AppFolio, implying pre-flight checks. It mentions required filters must be included or the request is rejected, which is a useful behavioral constraint. However, it doesn't disclose potential rate limits, error behaviors beyond validation, or what happens on partial failures; still, the validation disclosure is substantive.

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 concise sentences that each earn their place: the first states the primary action and validates, the second gives critical usage guidance (use describe_report first). No filler, no redundancy with the schema.

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 nested objects (params > report_name required, filters as arbitrary JSON object), no output schema, and no annotations. The description handles this well by pointing to describe_report for filter keys and stating the validation behavior, which collectively inform the agent how to construct a valid call. It covers the critical unknowns (required filters, parameter naming), though paginate_results behavior is left to the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It references describe_report for filter keys, which directs the agent to the authoritative source for parameter semantics. It explains that filters must match parameter names from describe_report. However, the description itself doesn't detail individual parameter formats beyond pointing to describe_report, so the agent must do a follow-up lookup; still, this is a reasonable delegation given the report-specific nature of filters.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's function: 'Run an AppFolio report and return its rows.' It names the specific verb (run), resource (AppFolio report), and outcome (return rows). It distinguishes from siblings: list_reports lists available reports while this executes them, and call_endpoint/describe_endpoint target endpoints rather than reports.

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?

Explicit guidance provided: 'Use describe_report first to learn the exact filter keys for the report.' This clearly instructs the agent on the prerequisite step before invocation. The description also clarifies validation behavior (validates report name, required filters, parameter names against the catalog), setting expectations that malformed calls will be rejected.

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