List reports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that – no mention of default/maximum result counts, pagination behavior via cursors, or what a listing returns.

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, but the first two sentences are an exact duplicate ('List reports.' repeated), which is wasted space rather than front-loading useful information. There is no unnecessary padding beyond that redundancy, but also no structure that helps an agent.

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 6-parameter tool with a nested date-range object, pagination cursors, and sibling tools like get_report and download_report, the description is far too thin. It omits report-vs-object scope, pagination guidance, and any differentiation from related report tools, leaving the agent to rely entirely on the schema.

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%, including enum values for `type` and `status` and a cursor explanation, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description merely echoes the two filter parameters and adds no semantics beyond what the schema already states; baseline 3 applies.

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 says 'List reports,' which only restates the tool name and title with no added specification. It never clarifies what a 'report' is here, how it differs from get_report, download_report, or create_report in the sibling set, or what the listing contains.

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?

It states you can filter by `type` or `status`, which is a hint at usage, but gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance and never mentions the obvious alternatives (get_report for a single report, download_report for retrieval, create_report for generation). The agent must infer routing from tool names alone.

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