dq_generate_reports

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

The only behavioral disclosure beyond the action is that this is a Pro feature, which hints at entitlement requirements. There are no annotations, so the description still leaves side effects, required setup, and whether report files are written somewhere completly undisclosed.

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 compact sentence with no redundant wording, and the core action is front-loaded. It is more terse than ideal, but it earns its place in terms of 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining what an agent will get and what it needs to provide. It omits what the report contains, what inputs are expected beyond the directory, and what the tool returns or writes, so it is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 only 50% and the description adds no parameter meaning. 'directory' is minimally described in the schema, but 'api_key' is entirely undocumented and the description does not clarify how it relates to the Pro requirement or report generation.

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 a clear action and resource: generating data quality reports. It is not a tautology and the domain prefix 'dq' helps distinguish it from the many other report-generating siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate from dq_generate_checks or dq_add_monitoring.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the adjacent data-quality tools or other report generators. The description only names the action and implies one could use it for data quality reporting, but it does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions.

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