generate_professional_report

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds context about output formats and data sources, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether reports are saved automatically, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens on failure. With annotations providing basic safety hints, the description adds some value but lacks rich behavioral context.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating format and data source details.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, nested objects) and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does but doesn't explain return values, error handling, or integration with sibling tools. With annotations providing basic hints and high schema coverage, it meets the minimum viable threshold but has clear gaps for such a multifaceted 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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 12 parameters. The description mentions 'multiple formats' and 'Microsoft 365 data,' which loosely maps to outputFormats and dataQueries parameters, but adds no specific syntax, format details, or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate comprehensive professional reports in multiple formats (PowerPoint, Word, HTML, PDF) from Microsoft 365 data.' It specifies the verb ('generate'), resource ('professional reports'), and scope ('from Microsoft 365 data'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like generate_audit_reports, generate_html_report, generate_powerpoint_presentation, or generate_word_document, which appear to be more specialized versions.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools, prerequisites, or specific contexts where this tool is preferred. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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