direct_report_raw

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses read-only behavior ('READ'), the raw/passthrough nature, and that it requires a fully specified report. However, it omits details like authentication requirements, response format, or error behavior, which would be helpful.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with 'READ', and instantly communicates risk and usage. No redundant 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 one parameter, no output schema, and the description covers purpose, usage, parameter structure, and alternatives, it is fairly complete. Minor gap: no mention of return value characteristics, but 'raw' implies direct API response.

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 only describes 'spec' as 'Reports params object', but the description lists concrete examples (SelectionCriteria, FieldNames, ReportType) and emphasizes the need for a 'full report spec', adding significant semantic value beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'READ: raw Reports API', clearly identifying the action (read) and resource (raw Reports API). It further specifies it requires a full report spec, distinguishing it from higher-level report tools like 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?

Explicitly states 'Advanced; prefer direct_report / direct_report_breakdown', giving clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The word 'Advanced' sets the context of when it's appropriate.

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