read_report

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context the annotations do not: pagination must continue via next_offset, and ISO dates must fall within the requested month. It does not disclose rate limits or partial-result behavior, so 4.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and pagination directive, no filler. Some phrases ('explicit date coverage') are terse at the expense of clarity, so not a 5.

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 need no explanation. However, with 6 required parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description only explains dimension values and the month/date constraint; package, family, and date format remain unaddressed for a complex 8-param tool.

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 8 parameters, so the description must compensate. It usefully enumerates valid dimension values and constrains month/date alignment, but package, family, start_date/end_date format, limit and offset semantics are only partially implied. Baseline 3 reflects partial compensation.

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 verb and resource: reading a monthly CSV report with date coverage. It is distinguishable from list_report_files (listing) and the review-list siblings. It stops short of an explicit sibling differentiation, so it lands at 4 rather than 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?

Gives real selection guidance: which dimensions belong to installs/ratings (overview, country, app_version, ...) versus store performance (country, traffic_source), and instructs to follow next_offset for all rows. It lacks any explicit when-not or comparison against sibling tools, keeping it below 5.

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