How to wire a website into public reports

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds rich behavioral context: explains the public report as a lead magnet, one-off sample, non-tracking nature, and why the snippet is browser-safe (no API key). This goes beyond the annotations and is highly useful for the agent to understand the tool's role.

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 longer than typical but every sentence adds value: it starts with what the tool returns, then explains the business context, then usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. While it could be tightened slightly, it is not bloated and the structure aids comprehension.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It explains what the output contains (integration example), the context of public reports, when to call, and security implications. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke or interpret the tool is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about parameters. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description doesn't need to add parameter details. It does explain the output (integration example), which is relevant but not parameter-specific.

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 provides integration details for posting forms to public reports, including agency id, endpoint, example body, cURL, and request. It explicitly differentiates from siblings by stating 'Call this whenever the question is how to set up, configure or integrate public reports' – distinct from get_report or create_report.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this whenever the question is how to set up, configure or integrate public reports, what the agency id is or where to find it, or what to hand a developer.' It also tells the agent to hand over the answer as an example rather than describing it. Clear and actionable.

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