cja_run_trended_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It indicates the tool runs a report (assumed read-only) and returns a dictionary, but it does not mention side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. For a reporting tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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?

The description is well-structured: a short intro, followed by an Args list, returns note, and example queries. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. While a bit lengthy, it earns its space by providing clear guidance without unnecessary fluff.

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?

Given 8 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what the tool does, what each parameter does, what it returns, and example use cases. It could detail error handling or output format further, but this is adequate for a reporting tool.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description's 'Args' section adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It explains each parameter in plain language, including examples like 'dimension: Optional dimension to break down the trend (e.g., "variables/mobiledevicetype")', which is highly valuable.

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 clearly states 'Run a time-series trend report' and explains that it analyzes how metrics change over time with specified granularity. This distinguishes it from siblings like cja_run_breakdown_report or cja_run_report, as it focuses on time-based trends.

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 provides example queries that illustrate when to use the tool, such as 'Show me daily visits trend for last 30 days'. It also explains optional dimension breakdown, giving context for usage, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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