event_monthly_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the display counts are consistent with the scheduled push report by default, which is useful, and that sections can be overridden or production-only scope can be applied. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it triggers a push or just returns content), return format details beyond Markdown, or any permissions or rate limits. The mutation-like behavior is not clarified.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose (generate monthly report) and mentions key behaviors (default consistency, overrides, production-only). It is efficient with no waste, though it could be slightly more structured for readability.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, output schema exists) and lack of annotations, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: it does not explain return value structure (though output schema exists, so that is covered), does not mention when to use versus siblings, and does not clarify potential side effects. The description covers the main customization options but lacks contextual guidance for an agent to decide between this and daily/weekly reports.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly, including defaults and special values for top_n parameters. The description adds little beyond that, but it does mention the ability to override sections and production-only scope, which aligns with parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds minimal extra semantic value beyond the schema.

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 generates an operations monthly report in Markdown format, with a specific resource (event data) and scope (monthly). It distinguishes from daily/weekly siblings by the word 'monthly' in the name and mentions customizable sections and production-only filtering, which differentiates it from other report tools.

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 implies when to use this tool (for monthly report generation) and provides options like per-section override and production-only mode, but it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives like event_daily_report or event_weekly_report. The context signal lists sibling tools, but the description itself lacks explicit routing.

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