reports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description reinforces this ('never audits or changes records') and adds a note about advertised return fields, but offers no pagination, rate-limit, or response-shape detail beyond the existing output schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the report list, with no filler. The second sentence about advertised result fields is slightly vague but does not bloat the definition.

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 an 11-parameter multi-action tool with a required action_name and 0% schema coverage, the description omits the one thing an agent most needs: the valid action values and how they map to the listed reports. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the input side is inadequately specified.

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% across 11 parameters, and the description does not explain any of them. It never defines what action_name values are valid, nor what item_id, user_id, target_id, action_filter, item_type, or the date range parameters do, leaving the agent to guess at the required routing parameter.

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 names a specific verb ('Read') and enumerates the concrete report families the tool produces: activity, item history, checkout/checkin history, status summaries, depreciation, and due/overdue assets. An agent gets a clear sense of what it returns, though it never distinguishes itself from siblings like assets_search or inventory_search that could overlap.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumerated report types, and 'This tool never audits or changes records' acts as a mild when-not signal. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over asset_lifecycle, assets_search, or inventory_search, and the action_name routing that selects among report types is left unexplained.

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