get_rebalancing_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the output contents, the optional filter, and the auth prerequisite for certain options, implying default json format and ≤30-day windows. It doesn't cover error handling, but the disclosed constraints are meaningful and not contradicted by any annotations.

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 a single, well-organized sentence that front-loads the primary purpose, then adds output details, filtering options, and prerequisites in a logical order. There is no redundancy or filler, and every phrase contributes useful information.

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 has three optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose, report contents, optional filtering, and auth constraints—sufficient for most use cases. It omits default day values (present in schema) and exact error behavior, but the missing details are not critical for a well-formed definition.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description doesn't need to re-explain parameters. It adds a bit of context (district filter is optional, csv and days>30 require API key), but these are already reflected in the schema. The description does not introduce new parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies a clear resource ('station rebalancing diagnostic report'), then elaborates with detailed output components (per-station classification, risk predictions, transfer recommendations). This level of specificity clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_stations or get_rankings.

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 solid context for usage, including optional district/barrio filtering and explicit API key requirements for csv format or windows above 30 days. However, it doesn't name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full guidance.

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