reports_list

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile completely (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is low. The description adds the content type of the result ('saved audit IDs'), but says nothing about pagination or ordering despite the presence of a limit parameter with default 20.

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 short sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity shades into under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value shape needn't be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, for a listing tool whose entire purpose is paging through IDs, the missing explanation of the limit parameter and pagination behavior leaves a real gap.

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?

There is one parameter (limit) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden and does not mention it at all. It gives no hint about paging, default page size, or how many IDs are returned per call.

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 a specific resource (saved audit IDs), so an agent immediately knows this is a discovery/enumeration tool. It implicitly distinguishes itself from reports_get and reports_history by framing its output as IDs 'for exact follow-up reads,' though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 first, then fetch precisely), but there is no explicit when-to-use versus reports_history / reports_get / reports_export_baseline, and no stated preconditions. Usage is inferable rather than directed.

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