get_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that cost is in RUB (not micros), the API is async with up to 5 minutes polling, and provides popular field_names. This is excellent transparency.

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 well-structured with Args and Notes sections, and purpose is front-loaded. It is concise but could be slightly tighter, e.g., by integrating the note about money format into the relevant parameter description.

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?

Given 6 parameters (4 required) and no output schema, the description covers all necessary information: parameter semantics, return format, async behavior, and cost unit. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage (no property descriptions in input schema), the tool description compensates thoroughly: it explains each parameter, gives examples, and lists valid report types and date formats.

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 runs a Reports-service query and returns rows as a list of dicts. It specifies the report types and parameters, distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform CRUD operations on campaigns, ad groups, etc.

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 lists required and optional parameters and provides notes on behavior, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings. However, given the sibling names, the usage context is clear.

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