ad_generate_user_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The '[READ]' tag implies a read-only operation, but nothing is said about required permissions, report size, cost/latency for large domains, or whether it writes files anywhere.

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 a single short front-loaded sentence with no padding, which is good, but at this length the brevity is under-specification rather than discipline.

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 are covered, but for a report-generation tool with three undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description leaves too much unstated. The Portuguese phrasing in an otherwise English toolset also adds friction.

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?

All three parameters (limit, output_format, correlation_id) have 0% schema description coverage and the description mentions none of them. Critical semantics such as valid output_format values and the meaning of limit are undocumented anywhere.

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 states a verb and a resource ('Gerar relatorio de usuarios' – generate user report) plus a category/read tag, so the intent is guessable. But it largely restates the tool name and adds no scope detail (which users, what fields, whole domain vs. filtered), so it barely distinguishes it from siblings like ad_list_users.

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 indication of when to use this report instead of ad_list_users, ad_search_users, or the other ad_generate_* reports. The agent must infer selection purely from the tool name.

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