podyx_v1_reports_packages

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by spelling out the full error contract: 422 for typed-input/complexity/allocation-coverage errors with no partial headline, opaque 404 for invalid or inaccessible references, 429 analysis_busy with Retry-After: 1 also with no partial headline, and native 500/503 for infrastructure faults. It also discloses that a quote reserves neither a slot nor a price and that pagination must be fully followed — exactly the operational traits an agent needs.

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?

Front-loads the one-line purpose before the dense operational rules, and every remaining clause carries a concrete constraint (permissions, status codes, pagination, quote semantics). It is telegraphic and jargon-heavy, but nothing is clearly redundant.

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?

For a read-only reporting tool with no output schema, it covers auth scopes, failure modes, pagination and side-effect expectations thoroughly. The main gap is that it never describes what the returned package metrics/headlines actually contain, which matters given there is no output schema.

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 description adds no parameter-level meaning at all; everything useful (page, metric enum, preset, plan_id, dates, inactivity_days carryover, currency non-conversion) lives in the nested schema property descriptions. Because the reported schema coverage is low at the outer level, the description could have compensated but does not; the nested descriptions keep this at a minimum-viable 3.

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 specific verb+resource ('Analyze studio packages') and pins it to a concrete endpoint (GET /api/v1/reports/packages), so the agent knows this is the packages report. It does not differentiate from the many sibling report tools (reports_revenue, reports_customers, reports_addons), leaving that distinction to the resource word 'packages' alone.

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?

Gives prerequisite context (reports:read required, clients:read needed for customer identities and signed client filters) and states 'Read/preview only', which frames usage. However, it never says when to pick this over the neighbouring report endpoints or what question it answers, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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