dap_agency_report

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already discloses the safety profile, and the description adds no additional behavioral context such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or data scope limitations. It is not contradictory, but it provides minimal value beyond the annotation.

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 concise: two sentences plus one example. It front-loads the verb and resource, and every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and usage. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description only says 'Returns analytics data,' which is vague and does not explain the response format, pagination behavior, or how the 'report' enum affects results. The example is helpful, but the description is minimally complete for a tool with 6 parameters and varied report types.

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?

The input schema already describes all 6 parameters with 100% coverage. The description's example uses parameter names but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a 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 clearly states the tool gets an agency-specific web analytics report from the Digital Analytics Program and returns data for a specific federal agency's websites. The 'agency-specific' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling tools like dap_gov_wide_report and dap_domain_report, and the example reinforces the intended use.

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 establishes a clear context: use this tool when you need analytics for one federal agency's websites rather than a government-wide or domain-level report. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls 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.