run_realtime_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only mentions 'real-time' without defining its meaning (e.g., data latency, refresh rate) or any constraints like rate limits or required permissions. Fails to compensate for missing 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?

One sentence, verb-first, clear action and output. No fluff. However, brevity sacrifices necessary detail; front-loading is good but could expand with a second sentence for parameters or usage.

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?

Output schema exists which covers return values, but the description lacks context on data freshness, supported metrics/dimensions, and operational details. Given the tool's real-time nature, more context is needed for effective use.

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 has 0% description coverage for parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema property names. For example, 'metrics' and 'dimensions' are not explained (e.g., valid values, syntax). This is a critical gap.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Run' and the resource 'real-time report', specifying output shows 'active users and live events'. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tool 'run_report' which likely runs standard reports, missing an opportunity to clarify the difference.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_report' or when to avoid it. The agent has no context about prerequisites or suitability for real-time vs. historical data scenarios.

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