run_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'execute' and 'get results', which implies a read/computation operation, but does not specify side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or whether it modifies data. This is insufficient for a tool that executes reports.

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 a single sentence of 18 words, which is efficient. It front-loads the action and resource. However, the long list of types could be structured better (e.g., bulletized) for readability, but overall it is concise.

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 the tool has 3 parameters, one nested object, and 8 enum values, with no output schema, the description is lacking. It does not explain the result format, error handling, or performance implications. The tool executes reports, so more detail on outputs and potential delays is needed.

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% for all three parameters. The description adds no significant meaning beyond the schema; it repeats the enum values for 'type' and notes that 'parameters' vary by type. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already provides clear parameter definitions.

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 the action (execute), the resource (report by type), and lists all supported types (funnel, retention, utm, goals, insights, revenue, journey, attribution). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_report or get_report by specifying execution and retrieval of results.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_report or list_reports. It implicitly suggests usage for executing reports by type but lacks context on prerequisites or scenarios where other tools are more appropriate.

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