List available reports

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/destructive=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a concrete operational constraint the annotations do not: a rate limit of 100 requests / 10 seconds per shop, which is genuinely useful context for an agent planning calls.

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?

Two compact sentences with the rate-limit warning front-loaded and the return-value summary following. The markdown link and italic wrapping are slightly noisy but not wasteful.

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 no-parameter, read-only listing tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the needed operational context (rate limit) plus a summary of returned fields. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 there is a single optional 'account' parameter whose semantics are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about that parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Returns the list of available report IDs') and enumerates the returned metadata (name, columns, supported precisions). It distinguishes itself from get_report by implication of 'list', but never names that sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus get_report or any other sibling, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer that this enumerates reports while get_report fetches one.

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