feegow_generate_report

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses it does not alter data and gives the HTTP method POST. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., file content, JSON response), error behavior, or whether generation is synchronous. Basic but not comprehensive.

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?

Very concise single sentence with example and HTTP method. Front-loads purpose. Could be more structured, but no waste.

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?

Lacks information about output (no output schema), error handling, authentication, or list of valid report identifiers. Does not mention that users might need to consult 'feegow_list_reports' for available reports. Under-specified for a report generation 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds an example for 'report' and clarifies date format 'yyyy-mm-dd'. The 'query' parameter is mentioned but schema already describes it. Minimal added meaning beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states it generates a report (verb+resource) and explicitly says it does not alter data. Provides an example identifier 'bills-to-pay' and mentions date parameters. Distinguishes it from siblings like 'feegow_list_reports' which lists reports.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites or when not to use. The only context is that it's read-only, but no comparison with sibling tools.

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