Get sales rep report

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine value by disclosing provenance ('inferred from the web app's own traffic; confirm results') and by enumerating return keys (draw, recordsTotal, recordsFiltered, data, meta, table_id, settings) despite there being no output schema.

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 first two sentences are well front-loaded, but the bulk of the text is an ~80-item enumeration of query parameters that duplicates the input schema verbatim and conveys no additional information. That padding dilutes the two sentences that actually matter.

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?

Return keys are covered, which offsets the missing output schema, but for an 88-parameter DataTables endpoint the description omits the essential usage contract: pagination via start/length, the draw echo, global vs per-column search, ordering, and the semantics of report_range_cache / date_filter_column. An agent cannot call this confidently without reverse-engineering the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (88 params), so the baseline is 3. The description merely re-lists the parameter names already in the schema and adds no meaning for the DataTables contract — nothing explains that draw is an echo counter, start/length control pagination, or that columns[N][search][value] is a per-column filter.

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 and resource ('Get sales rep report') and pins the exact endpoint (GET /reports/sales_rep), so an agent knows precisely what data this returns. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the ~30 other report siblings (net sales, job labor, payment totals), leaving disambiguation to the name 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?

There is no statement of when to pick this report over the many sibling reports, no prerequisites, and no note on required date ranges or permissions. The only guidance-like text, 'confirm results', is a reliability caveat rather than usage direction.

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