signupgenius_report_filled

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries the operational burden — and it does: it discloses the SIGNUPGENIUS_USER_KEY / Pro-subscription requirement, that session mode is unsupported for reports, and that results are limited to sheets created by the key-holder. These are exactly the auth and scope constraints an agent must know before invoking.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the opening clause, followed by prerequisites and then the routing alternative. Every clause carries a distinct constraint (auth, session-mode exclusion, scope, sibling preference) with no filler.

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 read-only report with one parameter, the definition covers auth, scope, and sibling routing thoroughly. The only minor gap is that it never hints at what the report contains (fields, pagination, volume), and with no output schema present the description is the only place that could say so.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents signupId fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or ID-sourcing detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline 3 for a fully-covered schema.

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 first sentence names a specific artifact (a report for a sign-up) and a precise scope (slots that have already been filled), which cleanly separates it from the sibling signupgenius_report_available. An agent can tell exactly what this returns without opening the schema.

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 explicitly names the alternative (signupgenius_list_slots) and the condition that selects it (slot dates/times/availability on ANY sign-up, no auth needed). It also states the auth prerequisite and the scope limit (only sheets the key-holder created), so the agent knows when this tool is and is not usable.

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