Create Tracker entity report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the endpoint path and states that it returns the report entity, but omits whether report generation is synchronous or async, permission/auth requirements, and whether repeat calls create duplicate reports. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and endpoint, with no filler. It is efficient, though the second sentence ('Returns the report entity.') is thin and could carry more substance rather than just size.

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 mutation tool with a deeply nested required body and no output schema, the description should clarify the report lifecycle (sync vs async, whether the returned entity must be polled/fetched). Neither the ambiguity around 'create' vs 'request' nor the response handling is addressed, so an agent lacks enough to invoke this confidently.

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% and every nested field (fields.summary, parameters.type, filter.query, sorts, format) is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, 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 names a specific verb+resource: it requests a report over Tracker entities and cites the backing endpoint (POST /entities/report/). An agent can tell it apart from nearby read tools like tracker_entities_search or tracker_entities_events_list, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. 'Request a report' vs the tool name's 'create' leaves slight ambiguity about whether it stores or generates.

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 when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. With siblings such as tracker_entities_search, tracker_entities_events_list, datalens_reports_create and forms_answers_export in the same namespace, the agent gets no signal on when this report tool is the right choice over simply listing/searching entities.

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