Generate Report

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, read-only behavior, performance implications, data freshness, or return format. 'Generate' gives no insight into whether the tool performs expensive computations or varies in behavior by report_type.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded and gets straight to the point. No filler words or repetition of schema details. It earns its place by summarizing the tool's purpose and the key metrics covered.

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?

The tool has two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description omits the period parameter, misleads by implying only a summary report, and does not explain the return structure or available report types. For an AI agent selecting and invoking the tool, this is incomplete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds high-level context about report content (customer stats, order volumes, etc.) that maps to some report_type values, but it does not explain the period parameter or how report_type selects different outputs. The added value is marginal given the schema already enumerates and describes both parameters.

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 identifies the tool's function: generating a summary report with key business metrics (customer stats, order volumes, revenue, product inventory). It uses a specific verb-resource pair and the listed metrics align well with report_type enums. Slight ambiguity: 'summary report' implies only the summary type, though the schema supports sales, customers, orders, inventory, and summary reports.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is given, but the sibling tools (get_order, list_products, search_customers) suggest this tool is for aggregate reporting rather than individual record lookups. This provides only implied usage context, not clear exclusions or alternatives.

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