list_reports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scoping behavior that reports are listed within a request, but it does not mention pagination or filtering behavior. No contradiction exists between the description and 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the operation and the expected scope, making it appropriately concise and well structured.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, the input schema fully documents all five parameters, and an output schema exists, the description is adequate when combined with the structured data. It establishes the core purpose and scope, though it leaves sibling relationship guidance to the usage dimension.

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%, with every parameter documented in the input schema, so the baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter-level detail. The description does not otherwise clarify semantics for request_id, name, limit, cursor, or category beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and names a clear resource ('reports') scoped to 'an analytics report request', so it is not a tautology and conveys the tool's core purpose. It implicitly distinguishes the tool from siblings such as list_report_requests and list_report_categories, though it does not explicitly name the alternatives.

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 phrase 'inside an analytics report request' implies the tool should be used when the agent needs reports belonging to a specific request, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. The schema's request_id description references list_report_requests and create_report_request, yet this routing context is not present in the description itself.

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