list_reports

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it specifies pagination behavior ('Results are paginated'), recommends default usage ('Use the maximum perPage by default'), and notes currency formatting ('Amounts are in the smallest currency unit'). This enhances understanding without contradicting annotations.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: purpose, default behavior, filtering, pagination, sorting, and currency details. There's minimal waste, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, 4 parameters with full schema coverage, readOnlyHint annotation, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers key behavioral aspects like pagination and currency units, though it could benefit from more explicit sibling differentiation or error handling details.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds some semantic context (e.g., explaining pagination with 'after' and recommending 'perPage' defaults), but doesn't provide significant additional meaning beyond what the schema already documents for each parameter.

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's purpose: 'list reports in Paddle'. It specifies the verb ('list') and resource ('reports'), and while it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_report' or 'create_report', the listing nature is evident. However, it doesn't fully distinguish from other list_* tools in the context.

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 provides implied usage guidance through parameter explanations (e.g., 'Filter reports by status as needed'), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_report' for individual reports or 'create_report' for new ones. It offers some context but lacks clear when/when-not directives.

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