List Reporting Apps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It clearly communicates a read-oriented listing behavior, scoped by service account visibility through the Reporting API, and adds useful context about the lack of an alternative endpoint. It could have mentioned pagination or explicit side-effect absence, but the 'List' framing makes the read-only nature reasonably clear.

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 concise sentences. The first front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds valuable context about why this endpoint is necessary. No filler or redundant wording.

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?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter, the description is complete: it states what is listed, under what authentication scope, and why this endpoint is the only viable option. The schema covers the parameter, and the output schema is noted to exist, so nothing essential is missing.

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 single parameter max_results is fully documented in the input schema with type, default, and description. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning, but the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('List every app') and the exact scope ('the service account can see through the Reporting API'). It also distinguishes this tool from the broader Publisher API by explaining that no 'list my apps' endpoint exists, making its role unambiguous.

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 explicitly explains why this tool exists and when to use it: it is described as 'the only way to enumerate a portfolio from a service account.' This directly signals the appropriate use case and rules out alternatives.

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