timeiq_report_custom

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose key behaviors. It only says 'generate', implying creation but not whether it's read-only, destructive, or requires authentication. No mention of rate limits, side effects, or response format.

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 short sentence, which is concise but lacks substance. It doesn't break down information or front-load key details, sacrificing clarity for brevity.

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 complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain return values, parameter usage, or how the 'extras' work, making it insufficient for effective tool use.

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 coverage is 0% — none of the 7 parameters have descriptions. The description only mentions 'extras' vaguely, leaving start_date, end_date, clients, projects, services, and people completely unexplained.

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 states it generates a custom report with flexible filter extras, which is somewhat clear but vague. It does not specify what makes it custom versus other report tools like timeiq_report_classic or timeiq_report_standard, leaving ambiguity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many other report siblings. The description lacks context on prerequisites, alternatives, or when not to use it.

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