generate_reports

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. 'Generate payment reports' only states the action, with no information about output format, potential side effects, processing time, authorization requirements, or what the generated report contains. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely has non-trivial behavior.

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, short sentence that wastes no words. It is front-loaded and immediately states the tool's purpose. However, given the tool's complexity (4 parameters), the extreme brevity borders on under-specification, but the conciseness dimension rewards efficiency, and this description is efficient.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is minimal and does not explain what the generated reports contain, how to interpret them, or any limitations. This is inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and output, making the description incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 100% description coverage, with each parameter (dateFrom, dateTo, format, reportType) already explained. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Generate payment reports' uses a specific verb ('generate') and a clear resource ('payment reports'), making the tool's primary function clear. However, it does not differentiate from any sibling tools, but no sibling appears to serve the same report-generation purpose, so the lack of differentiation is not a significant issue.

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 context, prerequisites, or exclusions. While siblings like 'export_to_accounting' might overlap, there is no explicit direction, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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