signupgenius_report_all

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds substantial context beyond them: the required credential and subscription tier, that session-based auth will fail, and that results are scoped to sheets created by the key-holder. It also discloses the return content shape (slot + participant + custom answers).

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the auth/scope caveats, then the alternative. No filler and every clause carries operational information.

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 single-parameter, read-only reporting tool with no output schema, the description covers all the decision-relevant facts: what is returned, what auth and subscription are required, which sheets are in scope, and which sibling to use instead. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with signupId fully documented in the schema (type, bounds, meaning). The description adds no format or identifier guidance beyond what the schema already states, so this sits at the baseline for a well-covered single-param tool.

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 specific verb and resource: a full report per sign-up containing every slot, its claiming participant, and custom-question answers when present. It clearly separates itself from signupgenius_list_slots, but does not articulate how it differs from its close siblings signupgenius_report_filled and signupgenius_report_available.

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 explicit prerequisites (SIGNUPGENIUS_USER_KEY with a Pro subscription), an exclusion (session mode is not supported), a scope limitation (only sheets the key-holder created), and names a preferred alternative (signupgenius_list_slots) with the exact condition that selects it — getting slot dates/times on any sign-up without auth.

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