list_reports

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond annotations: results are returned newest-first and the domain filter is an exact match. Pagination and limits are not mentioned, but an output schema exists and there is no contradiction.

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?

Two short, information-dense sentences. The main listing behavior is front-loaded and the filtering condition is stated immediately after; there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a read-only list operation with one optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential scope, ordering, and domain-filtering semantics. An agent has enough to make a correct invocation without needing the return structure explained.

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%, but the only parameter (domain) is fully explained by the phrase '完全一致で絞り込む', which tells the agent that filtering is exact-match. The optional/null default is already visible in the schema, so the description provides exactly the missing semantic meaning.

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 ('返す' / returns), a specific resource ('MCP経由で作成済みのレポート'), and an ordering ('新しい順'). It is unambiguous about what is listed, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as get_report_summary, so it misses full sibling 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 behavior implies when to use it: an agent wants MCP-created reports, newest first, optionally filtered by exact domain. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives, leaving the choice mostly to inference.

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