getCustomReport

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, or authentication requirements. It defers entirely to runShopifyQL, leaving the agent without independent behavioral information.

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 very concise with two sentences, front-loading the alias nature and usage instruction. Every sentence contributes, leaving no waste, though it could be more informative.

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's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but adequate as a thin alias. However, it lacks return value information and standalone completeness, relying on the referenced runShopifyQL.

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 has 100% description coverage for the parameter, and the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema (e.g., 'pass a raw ShopifyQL string in `query`'). The schema description itself provides formatting hints.

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 it is an alias for runShopifyQL and instructs to pass a raw ShopifyQL string in the 'query' parameter, clearly indicating its action and resource. It differentiates from other report tools like getAbandonmentReport which likely have fixed parameters.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like runShopifyQL or other report tools. It only refers to runShopifyQL for syntax, but does not explain selection criteria or context.

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