Get customer report

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context that the annotations cannot: the report is scoped to a single customer and returns categorized counts, which is the only disclosure of return content since no output schema exists.

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 sentence with zero filler, front-loading the verb, scope and returned dimensions. Nothing repeats the title or name and every clause carries information.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the report's count categories, and annotations cover the mutation/safety dimension. It is slightly thin on the relationship to sibling reporting tools and on whether counts are affected by any filters beyond 'days', but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100% — both 'days' (window for recent errors, max 365) and 'customerId' (from postsider_list_groups) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Get a customer-scoped agency report') and enumerates what the report contains (channel, queued, draft, published, error, pending approval counts). The 'customer-scoped' framing implicitly distinguishes it from postsider_get_agency_overview, but the sibling is never named, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 description implies the use case (pull per-customer counts for a report) through the field list, but never states when to prefer this over postsider_get_agency_overview or postsider_get_publishing_state, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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