List the public reports of the account

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations: it specifies the ordering ('newest first'), the scope ('every report this key's account has generated'), and clarifies that reports are one-off samples (not tracking) until converted. This context helps the agent understand what the returned data represents, going beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 excessively long for a list tool. It spends several sentences on the business model of public reports (white-label, lead magnet, branding) before explaining the actual fields. While the first sentence is front-loaded and concise, the rest is verbose and could be trimmed to the essential field meanings. An agent calling this tool only needs to know what it lists and what the fields mean; the marketing explanation is unnecessary. This reduces clarity and wastes tokens.

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 that there is no output schema, the description must convey the structure of the return. It does this by stating that each row carries the visibility score, whether the prospect asked to be contacted, whether the report is converted, and it mentions contactCount and leadStatus. It also explains the business context, which is useful for interpreting the data. It is not exhaustive (e.g., it doesn't list every field or pagination behavior), but for a read-only list with a cursor, it is sufficiently complete.

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 has 100% description coverage: limit and cursor are fully explained. The description does not add anything about these parameters themselves. It does add meaning about the returned fields (visibility score, contactCount, leadStatus, converted status), which helps interpret the output, but that is not parameter semantics. Since the schema fully covers the parameters, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 first sentence states exactly what the tool does: 'Every report this key's account has generated, newest first'. The resource (reports) and verb (list) are clear, and the ordering is specified. It also distinguishes this from siblings like get_report (single report) and list_projects (projects, not reports) by emphasizing 'public reports' and the lead-pipeline context. The description is unambiguous about the scope.

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 implicitly tells the agent when to use this tool by framing it as the 'agency's lead pipeline' and stating that 'Sorting the work by contactCount is how the interested leads are found.' This clearly indicates a use case: to examine leads and identify interested prospects. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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