list_reports

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions permission-scoped visibility ('API key can see') but does not explain pagination behavior (limit/cursor), default limits, or any other side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly confirmed.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that is direct and to the point. It avoids unnecessary words or repetition. However, it might be too sparse, sacrificing explanatory value for brevity, but it earns its place as a concise purpose statement.

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?

This is a simple list tool with an output schema, so the return shape is covered externally. However, the description is missing pagination details and any context about the limit/cursor parameters. While not critical for a basic list operation, the lack of such guidance makes it only minimally 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 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the limit or cursor parameters at all. These parameters are not self-explanatory beyond their names; no explanation is given for how they control result size or pagination. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'List reports the API key can see' clearly states a specific action (List) on a specific resource (reports) with an added scope qualifier (the API key can see). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_report (retrieves a single report) and run_report (executes/refreshes a 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_report should be used for a specific report, nor does it discuss when to pass limit or cursor. Usage is only implied by the tool's name, not explicitly explained.

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