data-report-list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states 'fetch data report list,' which implies a read-only operation but does not specify any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what the list contains. This leaves critical operational details undefined, making it inadequate for a tool with no annotation support.

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 with a single sentence 'fetch data report list.' It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it efficient in terms of length. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of clarity and completeness, but as per the scoring criteria, it earns full points for being appropriately sized and structured without unnecessary elaboration.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns a list of data reports. It does not explain the return format, scope, or any behavioral aspects, leaving significant gaps in understanding. While the zero-parameter schema reduces complexity, the description fails to provide sufficient context for effective use, especially compared to more detailed sibling tools.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate since there are no parameters to describe. This aligns with the baseline expectation for zero-parameter tools, where the description need not compensate for schema gaps.

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 'fetch data report list' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'data-report-list' with minimal additional meaning. It uses a generic verb 'fetch' without specifying what constitutes a 'data report' or the scope of the list. While it indicates a retrieval action, it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish this tool from sibling list tools like 'analytics-chart-list' or 'experiment-list'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'data-report-detail' for individual reports or other list tools. Without such information, an AI agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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