list_landing_page_reports

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context: 'Authenticated via API key', 'Max 10 concurrent requests', and 'Read-only, safe to retry'. This provides extra transparency beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 with two paragraphs plus a structured docstring block. It efficiently conveys purpose, parameters, and behavior without unnecessary words.

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 list tool with three simple parameters and an output schema, the description covers key aspects: what it returns (JSON list), pagination, and authentication. It is complete enough for an AI agent to invoke correctly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates with detailed param explanations for count, offset, and account, including defaults and usage of multiple accounts. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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 description clearly states 'List reports for all landing pages' and elaborates that it retrieves aggregate performance reports across every landing page. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_landing_pages' which lists pages themselves, and 'get_landing_page_report' which targets a single page.

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 guides on pagination with 'count and offset' and mentions the 'account' parameter with a reference to 'list_accounts'. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a per-page report is needed instead of the aggregate.

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