manager_report_catalogue

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it is a catalogue with no parameters, it classifies legacy report tools by representation (current state vs raw feed vs reconstruction), and it scopes what categories the entries have. Return formatting itself is not described, but an output schema exists.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with 'Read-only catalogue of Manager report types:' followed by a colon-led enumeration, then a second sentence on legacy classification. No filler, though the first sentence packs four clauses into one dense run.

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 zero-parameter lookup tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies enough: what the catalogue contains, what dimensions it classifies, and that it maps report types to MCP tools. It stops just short of stating whether the catalogue is static or must be re-fetched, which is a minor gap.

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?

Zero parameters, so per the baseline rule a 4 is appropriate; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Schema coverage is nominal at 100% with an empty properties object.

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 resource (catalogue of Manager report types) and enumerates exactly what it covers: API representation type, date parameters, application-only views, and the MCP tool for each. An agent knows this is a meta/lookup index rather than a data-fetching tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself with a close sibling such as get_report_definition, so it falls short of a 5.

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 mention of 'which MCP tool covers each' strongly implies the routing use case (consult this before picking a report tool), but there is no explicit when-to-use instruction or when-not/exclusion guidance. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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