eb_org_report

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds the 'optionally windowed by date' behavior, which is useful, but it does not disclose return format, pagination behavior (despite the continuation parameter), or how group_by and event_status affect results. The description adds some value but lacks rich behavioral context.

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 that conveys the core purpose without fluff. It efficiently communicates the action, the resource, and an optional modifier, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides only a high-level overview. It mentions date filtering but omits important behavioral aspects like pagination, grouping, and event status filtering, which are present in the schema but not explained in prose. The description is adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to infer expected behavior.

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 coverage is 86%, so most parameters are described in the schema. The description adds meaning by clarifying that 'kind' distinguishes sales versus attendees reports and that date parameters create a window, but it does not elaborate on group_by, continuation, or event_status. This is baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Run'), the resource ('an organization's sales or attendees report'), and adds distinguishing context ('aggregated analytics behind its events, optionally windowed by date'). This effectively separates it from sibling tools like eb_org_attendees or eb_org_orders, which list raw data rather than aggregated analytics.

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 implies usage for generating reports but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like eb_org_attendees or eb_org_orders. It does not state exclusions or mention specific scenarios where this report should be preferred.

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