list_report_segments

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful extra context beyond those hints: segment URLs expire 5 minutes after the call, and large reports are split into multiple segments. This discloses a time-sensitive state change and points to a helper tool for consuming the result, which is genuinely useful.

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 sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the single most important behavioral caveat (URL expiration) and a pointer to the sibling downloader. Every sentence earns its place.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It already covers the tool's purpose, the segmenting behavior of large reports, URL expiry, and how to get parsed content. There is no missing operational context an agent would need to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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%, so instance_id and limit are already documented in the schema (instance_id as 'ID from list_report_instances', limit as 'Segments per page (1-200)'). The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List the segments of a report instance, each with a download URL.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_report_instances (lists instances) and download_report_instance (downloads/parses), removing ambiguity about what this tool returns.

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?

It gives clear context: large reports are split into segments, and this tool lists them. It also references the alternative behavior of download_report_instance, which 'fetches and parses them for you,' implying this tool is for obtaining raw segment URLs while the sibling handles automated fetching/parsing. It lacks an explicit 'use this when' or 'don't use when' statement, so it falls just short of a 5.

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