run_performance_report

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context by detailing the submission, polling, downloading, and parsing steps. It does not contradict annotations and provides insight into the end-to-end process.

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 extremely concise: two sentences front-load the purpose and then explain the difference from a raw submit. Every sentence adds value without waste.

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 (8 optional parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the core workflow but omits potential edge cases like timeouts or error handling. However, the output schema provides return type information, making the description reasonably complete.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description does not mention any parameters or add meaning beyond the schema, so it neither improves nor degrades the semantic understanding.

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 runs a performance report end-to-end and returns parsed rows. It uses a specific verb (run) and resource (performance report), and distinguishes itself from a raw submit by explaining the workflow. This uniqueness is maintained among siblings.

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 a clear contrast with a 'raw submit' (indicating when to use this tool for convenience), but does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it. However, the context is sufficient for the agent to understand its primary use case.

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