Execute report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about execution side effects, permissions, or whether running a report creates output artifacts. 'Run' hints at execution, but nothing about what happens on failure or whether it is idempotent is stated.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The problem is under-specification rather than verbosity, so it lands at a middling score.

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 tool with two nested free-form object parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition leaves an agent with no way to construct a valid call beyond the required reportName. It is materially incomplete.

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 three parameters, including two nested open-ended objects (columns, parameters) whose structure is entirely undocumented. The description only says 'with parameters', which does not explain the columns map or the expected parameter keys, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 restates the name and title almost verbatim: 'ExecuteReport — run a named report with parameters.' It adds only the notion of a named report and parameters, which the schema already reveals. There is no differentiation from siblings like get_reports or get_invoice_aggregation_report.

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 guidance on when to use this instead of get_reports or the various report-fetching siblings. No prerequisites, no mention of whether the report must first be retrieved, and no exclusions.

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