flow_report

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a little context by clarifying that it returns metrics for common flows, but it does not disclose aggregation behavior, return format, or limitations beyond what the schema already documents. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two short sentences with the action front-loaded and only relevant examples included. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

The description is sufficient for a read-only report tool but lacks sibling differentiation and any detail on return values, especially with no output schema. An agent could confuse it with flow_series_report or custom_report without additional context. Operational details are mostly delegated to 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%, and the schema already provides meaningful details for parameters like conversion_metric_id, start/end, and timeframe. The description itself does not add parameter-level semantics, so it appropriately relies on the schema.

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 names a specific action and resource: getting email flow (automation) performance for a Klaviyo account, and gives examples of covered flows (welcome series, abandoned cart, post-purchase). It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling flow_series_report.

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 guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as flow_series_report, campaign_report, or custom_report. The description implies it is for flow performance reporting, but it does not state exclusions or direct the agent to a sibling for other needs.

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