List past reports

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the tool returns only compact metadata and summaries, and makes a strong guarantee that full report content is never returned. It does not describe ordering or pagination, but those are minor for a list tool with an output schema.

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 sentences with zero filler. The key result type and limitation are front-loaded, and the workflow guidance is delivered in a compact second sentence.

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 description provides a clear workflow and output boundary, and the output schema covers return values. However, with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the filtering behavior is left entirely to inference. A complete list-tool description should at least hint at how query, date range, and symbols narrow results.

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 needed to explain the five filter parameters. It does not mention limit, query, date_from, date_to, or symbols, nor how they interact. The parameter names are conventional, but the description adds no semantic value beyond them.

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 ('Return') and resource ('past reports'), and specifies the exact result scope: 'compact report metadata and short summaries only.' The phrase 'full report content is never returned' clearly differentiates it from a full-content retrieval tool like report_read.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool 'before reading any past report,' which establishes when it belongs in the workflow. It also warns that full report content is never returned, implying this is not the tool for full-content access, but it does not name a specific sibling as the alternative.

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