asc_analytics_report

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

Although annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it walks request → report → instance → every segment, downloads signed URLs, gunzips TSV, returns parsed rows, and warns that reading only the first segment yields a plausible but partial result. It also clarifies the account-level semantics of ONGOING accessType, going far beyond the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence. Every subsequent sentence contributes distinct information: the retrieval mechanics, the partial-data pitfall, the list mode, and the non-creating side-effect warning. There is no filler.

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 there is no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (parsed rows from TSV), how it traverses all data segments, how to use list mode, and that it never creates report requests. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and understand its scope and limitations.

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 high at 83%, with app, date, max_rows, list_only, and report_name already explained in the schema. The description reinforces the report_name list behavior but does not add meaningful semantics for granularity or the other parameters, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 opens with 'Fetch an analytics report as rows', giving a specific verb and resource. It then describes the full retrieval pipeline and explicitly distinguishes this tool from report-creating operations with 'Never creates a report request', which separates it from write-oriented siblings.

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 gives clear operational guidance: omit report_name to list available reports, and never use this to create a report request because ONGOING accessType is a standing commitment. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives for report creation, so it falls just short of the most explicit alternative-routing guidance.

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