List reports

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this as a safe read, so the safety burden is lifted. The description adds two pieces of genuine context beyond the annotations: results are scoped to the caller's tenant and only "shareable" (i.e., a filtered subset) reports are returned. It does not disclose ordering, pagination, or emptiness behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope qualifier ("for the tenant") is embedded rather than appended as an afterthought. Nothing in it is redundant.

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 read-only list tool the description covers the essentials, but with no output schema it could say more about what a "report" object contains or how the list is ordered/bounded. Adequate but with a visible gap around return shape.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case: there is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs, and no ambiguity is introduced.

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 gives a specific verb ("List") and resource ("shareable visibility reports for the tenant"), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the other list siblings (competitors, prompts, snapshots), though the resource noun is distinct enough to separate them in practice.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the sibling list tools (list_snapshots, list_prompts, list_competitors), nor any prerequisite or exclusion. Usage is only implied by the verb "List".

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