direct_report_breakdown

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

Given the absence of annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context with 'READ' and 'Polls offline report,' indicating a read-only and asynchronous operation. But it does not explain the polling lifecycle, return format, or any prerequisites, leaving notable gaps.

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 brief and front-loaded, using fragments to convey distinct pieces of information. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool, but the cryptic language (e.g., 'RSYA junk') slightly reduces its accessibility.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not cover output format, default date ranges, or how to handle the offline report polling. Given the presence of many sibling report tools, more context is needed to ensure correct usage and result interpretation.

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 only 33% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It only conceptually covers the 'breakdown' parameter and adds a tip about Placement, but it ignores limit, date range, campaign_ids, and project (whose schema description is in Russian). This is insufficient for an agent to correctly populate all parameters.

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 identifies a READ operation for a performance report with a breakdown dimension and lists several valid breakdown values. However, jargon like 'Soft Conversions' and 'RSYA junk' may confuse an agent, and it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling report tools like direct_report_raw or direct_report.

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 an in-tool parameter recommendation ('For RSYA junk use Placement') and notes that it polls an offline report, implying a use case. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over sibling report tools or give any exclusions, so guidance is only partially developed.

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