Any Reporter report, raw

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

Goes beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations by revealing that the tool returns raw, unmodified rows and columns, that it requires Apple Podcasts Connect credentials, and that Apple's publication lag affects data availability. These are operationally useful details not present in the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the verb and output shape, the second gives differentiation and use cases, the third covers authentication. The key contrast is front-loaded before the alternative explanation.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description tells the agent what the tool returns ('columns and rows unchanged') and why it exists. Credentials, lag, and escape-hatch use are all present, making this complete for a raw report-fetching tool with rich schema descriptions.

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%, so the parameters (date, limit, date_type, report_type) are already fully documented with types, defaults, enum options, and behavioral notes. The description adds context by mentioning 'by name' and the raw nature of the output, but it does not need to restate parameters.

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 action ('Fetch any Apple Podcasts Connect listening report by name') and a clear output behavior ('return its columns and rows unchanged'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling analytics tools by identifying this as the raw 'escape hatch' tool, so an agent can tell it apart from shaped report views.

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?

Explicitly says when to use this tool: for reports not covered by the other analytics tools and for inspecting columns after Apple changes a report format. It contrasts this with 'the other analytics tools are shaped views over specific reports', giving the agent a clear routing rule.

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