reports_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds that the output is 'saved audit IDs', which is useful context, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result set size despite the limit parameter.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is efficient. It may be slightly too terse to carry the tool's scope, but every word earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. However, for a list tool the description omits pagination/limit behavior and gives no relationship to reports_get or reports_compare, leaving gaps an agent would want filled.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the 'limit' parameter or its default of 20. With one undocumented optional parameter, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap, leaving pagination semantics entirely unstated.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('saved audit IDs') and hints at its role as a lookup step ('for exact follow-up reads'), which faintly distinguishes it from reports_get/reports_compare. It does not explicitly name a sibling or clarify the 'audit IDs vs reports' naming mismatch, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 phrase 'for exact follow-up reads' implies the workflow (list IDs, then read them individually), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not, and no named alternative such as reports_get. Usage is only inferable.

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