report_requests_list_reports

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully explains the default limit and the rationale (preventing response-size issues), and notes the upper bound of 200. However, it does not explicitly confirm a read-only nature, describe pagination behavior (e.g., no offset), or mention error conditions. It adds some context but not a rich behavioral profile.

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 extremely concise: it has one clear purpose sentence and one sentence about the limit behavior. No filler or redundant material. It is appropriately sized for a list tool and front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Although an output schema exists and the tool is a simple list operation, the description leaves the semantics of three of five parameters unexplained. The agent can infer request_id and limit, but 'name', 'include', and 'category' are ambiguous. Given zero schema descriptions and no annotations, this is a notable gap that could lead to incorrect invocation. The tool's overall complexity is low, so a complete description would be easy to provide; this one is only partially complete.

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 covers 5 parameters with zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only explains the 'limit' parameter (default and maximum). The required 'request_id' is inferable from the tool name but not explicitly described, and the optional 'name', 'include', and 'category' parameters are entirely unexplained. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent invoking the tool.

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 a specific action ('List reports') on a clearly scoped resource ('for a specific analytics report request'), using a strong verb-object construction. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'analytics_report_requests_list' (lists requests) and 'reports_get' (gets a single report) by clarifying the request-scoped listing behavior. Though the category prefix is generic, the core sentence is precise.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you have a specific analytics report request and need its reports. It also gives concrete usage guidance about the limit parameter (default 50, max 200) to avoid response-size issues. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops 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.