ad_generate_group_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it delivers almost nothing beyond a '[READ]' tag: no mention of report contents, scope (all groups vs. filtered), expected cost/runtime on large domains, or how output_format affects behavior. For a report-generation tool with a default limit of 500, the lack of any performance or completeness caveat is a real gap.

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?

It is short and front-loaded with category tags, so there is no wasted prose. But the brevity here is under-specification rather than economy — one substantive clause cannot carry a three-parameter, no-annotation tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Everything else is missing: no annotations, zero parameter documentation, and no guidance on scope or alternatives. The description also switches language (Portuguese) while all sibling names and parameters are English, adding a small interpretation cost.

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 0% across all three parameters — limit, output_format, and correlation_id carry only titles and defaults. The description adds no meaning: it does not explain what limit applies to (groups enumerated? rows returned?), what values output_format accepts (no enum is defined), or what correlation_id is for.

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 ('Gerar relatorio de grupos' — generate a group report), which is clear enough for an agent to know what it produces. However, it does nothing to differentiate itself from ad_list_groups, ad_get_group, or the other ad_generate_*_report siblings, so the agent must already know which report tool it wants.

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 bracketed tags hint at the Reports/Inventory category and '[READ]' signals read-only intent, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus ad_list_groups or ad_generate_active_accounts_report-style alternatives. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no scenario guidance.

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