Reports: Get Account reports

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: the required auth mechanism (User API key in the api-access-token header) and a data-encoding caveat about Persian/Arabic-Indic digits and unchanged text values.

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?

Short and front-loaded: the core action leads, followed by endpoint and auth. The closing sentence on Persian/Arabic-Indic digits is a bit tangential to the tool's primary purpose but is legitimate I/O context and 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 a read tool with full parameter documentation and annotations covering the safety profile, the essentials are present. However, there is no output schema and the description only says 'time-series report data' without indicating the shape, granularity, or pagination behavior of the returned data, leaving the return contract underspecified.

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%, and the schema already enumerates the allowed report types and metrics, so the description needn't repeat them. The description maps the conceptual inputs (metric, report type, date range) but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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 time-series report data for a metric, report type and date range') and names the endpoint. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling gapify_get_account_reports_summary via 'time-series' vs. summary, but never names that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 phrase 'time-series report data' implies when this tool applies (trend/over-time queries versus a summary), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the closely related summary or metrics siblings. Usage is left to inference.

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