summarize_report

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral note that it signals when the total covers only part of the report (partial-coverage indicator), but says nothing about pagination via limit/cursor/max_pages or the required time window.

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 compact sentence with the grouping behavior front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of coverage elsewhere rather than being a structural flaw.

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 described. But for a 10-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and required time-range bounds, the description is far too thin to let an agent invoke it correctly without guessing at parameter meaning and pagination.

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% across 10 parameters, so the description must carry the burden and largely does not. It loosely maps three grouping modes to the group_by enum values, but the two required parameters (purchase_time_start/end), limit, cursor, max_pages, and the filter params are left completely unexplained.

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 states a specific verb (Agrupa/groups) and resource (conversões), and names three grouping modes (subID bruto, campanha, dia UTC). However, it does not distinguish this tool from close siblings like get_conversion_report, get_validated_report, or export_data, which an agent could easily confuse with a report-summarizing tool.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use summarize_report versus the similar-sounding get_conversion_report or get_validated_report siblings. The description lists what it groups but gives no conditions, prerequisites, or routing cues.

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