dm_report

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only reporting operation and discloses the metric categories returned, but says nothing about permissions, side effects, rate limits, or pagination, and the '(§15.8)' reference is opaque without the source document.

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?

It is short and front-loaded with the resource and input shape, but the telegraphic style ('auto share', '§15.8') reads as jargon shorthand that an outside agent cannot fully parse. Every line carries content, but the cryptic section reference and unexplained terms cost clarity.

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 values need not be explained, and the input shape is covered despite the opaque schema. What is missing, given a crowded sibling set with dm_/do_ pairs and no annotations, is any routing guidance or behavioral caveats that would let an agent choose and call this correctly.

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 coverage is 0% with a single opaque 'payload' object, so the description is doing real work by disclosing the payload shape: a list of point_ids and a format field with json|md options. That is genuinely additive over the schema, though it does not mark which keys are optional or how multiple point_ids combine.

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 says the tool produces 'Per-point metrics' and enumerates the metric families it covers (agreement, coverage, auto share, audits, savings, drift, promotion blockers), which gives a reasonable sense of the output. However, it never names a verb for the operation and never distinguishes this from sibling reporters like do_report or dm_export, so an agent cannot confidently pick it apart from them.

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 only usage hint is 'With workflow, the one-turn workflow report (§15.8)', which gestures at a mode without saying when to choose it or what 'workflow' means here. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance against the many sibling report/export tools.

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