run_ticket_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. However, it only mentions the report is 'reconciled' and not to call repeatedly. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects occur, or what happens if called repeatedly. The 'do not call repeatedly' note is more of a usage guideline than a behavioral disclosure.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by a clear usage exclusion. Every word earns its place—no filler or redundancy.

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 description gives purpose and usage, but with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, it leaves critical gaps: what 'reconciled' means, what the output format is, what each parameter does, and any side effects. This is not complete enough for an agent to confidently invoke without further clarification.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only references 'combined group-by fields,' which touches on group_by but leaves limit, months, filters, and include_examples unexplained. This is insufficient for a 5-parameter tool.

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 function: 'Run one complete reconciled report with combined group-by fields.' It also distinguishes from sibling build_ticket_dashboard by explicitly saying not to use this tool repeatedly for dashboards. The verb 'run' and resource 'report' are specific.

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 explicit guidance on when not to use the tool: 'Do not call this repeatedly to build a multi-section dashboard; use build_ticket_dashboard.' This clearly routes to the appropriate alternative sibling.

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