batch_run_reports

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

Goes well past the annotations by disclosing that each batched report independently consumes quota, that results preserve input order and carry a reportIndex, and that pagination via nextOffset is per-report rather than shared. That last point is a genuinely non-obvious behavior an agent could easily get wrong.

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 batching scope and quota cost are front-loaded, then the parameter contract and the example. The list of optional report keys is long but each entry prevents a malformed nested object, so nothing is padding.

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 0% schema coverage, three parameters including a free-form array of objects, and an existing output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: the batch-level vs. item-level split, required item keys, ordering guarantees, and independent pagination. Return-value shape is left to the output schema, as intended.

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?

With zero schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden and does so: it enumerates the required report keys (start_date, end_date, metrics), the optional ones (dimensions, filters, order_bys, limit, offset, currency_code, keep_empty_rows), and resolves the critical ambiguity that property_id/account belong only at batch level. The inline example removes any remaining nesting doubt.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Run 1–5 core reports on one property") plus the defining constraint of the tool — a single round trip for a batch. The references to "core reports" and "run_report arguments" signal clearly that this is the batched analogue of run_report rather than a realtime or funnel tool.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the 1–5 range and "core reports" hint that a lone report should go through run_report and that realtime/funnel reports are out of scope, but neither alternative is named. There are no explicit exclusions or prerequisites (e.g. auth or property scope) beyond the quota warning.

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