run_report

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

The description adds 'requires write permission,' which usefully supplements readOnlyHint=false with an auth requirement. However, it does not disclose whether execution is asynchronous, whether results are stored, or what side effects occur beyond triggering the report.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the action and the key permission requirement without wasting words.

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 simple two-parameter action with complete schema coverage and annotations, the description is minimally viable. The main gap is that there is no output schema and the description does not mention what the call returns or how to follow up on execution status.

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%, and both report_id and notify_email are clearly documented. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('Run/execute a report') on a specific resource, making it immediately clear this is not a retrieval or scheduling tool. It distinguishes itself from sibling getters like get_report and get_report_execution by signaling a state-changing execution.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_report_execution for checking results or update_report_schedule for scheduling. The description leaves all routing decisions to inference.

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