Report catalogue

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations: keys are plan- and country-dependent and read from the panel, the call is slow on first invocation because sections are read sequentially, and an interruption returns partial results. These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs before deciding to call it.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the scoping option, then the performance caveat. Every sentence carries information; only the ordering of the slowness note before the dashboard tip slightly buries the actionable guidance.

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?

With no output schema, the description does carry the return-value burden and does state that keys per section are returned, including partial keys on interruption. It stops short of describing the shape of a key or how sections map to entries, which is a minor gap for a catalogue tool.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description only restates the dashboard filter. It never explains why a catalogue of keys requires date_from/date_till or how time_span affects the returned keys, which is the one genuinely non-obvious semantic here.

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?

States a concrete resource and result: 'Every report key this salon can open, per statistics section' — an agent knows this returns a catalogue of report identifiers, not report data. It does not explicitly contrast itself with stats_report, stats_report_metadata, or stats_report_section, which are the closest siblings, so differentiation is left implicit.

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?

'Pass dashboard for just one section' gives one concrete usage pattern, and the slow-first-read note implies when to prefer the scoped call. However, there is no statement of when to call this versus stats_report or stats_report_metadata, nor any prerequisite (e.g. that keys are needed before calling stats_report).

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