Run report

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

With readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the safety profile is already conveyed by annotations. The description adds that parameters are optional and vary per report, but it does not explain return format, latency, or required permissions. This is adequate but not rich beyond what annotations already tell us.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant filler.

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 read-only tool with good annotations and schema, the description covers key prerequisites (check list_reports first) and parameter variability. The only gap is the lack of explanation about the return value, which is not covered by an output schema, but the overall context is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'report' as a string code/name and 'parameters' as a per-report object. The description's mention of 'date ranges etc.' and 'parameters vary per report' adds no substantive meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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 action ('Run'), the target resource ('built-in Upmind report'), and the method ('by its code/name'). It also differentiates from the sibling tool list_reports by instructing the user to check it first, establishing the report-running scope.

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?

It provides a clear prerequisite ('Check list_reports first') and notes that parameters vary, implying the need to consult the report's expected parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool in favor of an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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