List aggregate reports

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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only profile, so the bar is lower, and the description clears it by disclosing a non-obvious pagination contract: it does not follow standard pagination, truncation is signalled by 'truncated', and 'next_cursor' must be passed back as 'cursor'. This is exactly the kind of behavior an agent could not infer from structured data.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: result shape, downstream use, pagination quirk, cursor semantics. Front-loaded with the row semantics and free of 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?

With no output schema, the description must document the return fields, and it does name 'truncated' and 'next_cursor' and explain their meaning. Filter parameters (domain, reporter_org, date bounds) are left untouched, but their names are largely self-describing, so the omission is minor.

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 only 60%, and 'cursor' has no schema description at all. The description compensates by explaining what the cursor is for ('The cursor carries the filters') and how to advance it, which is the highest-risk parameter to get wrong. The filter params remain undocumented, so it does not fully close the coverage 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?

The description states the resource and its granularity precisely: 'One row per ingested aggregate XML.' Combined with the name, an agent knows exactly what is returned, and the mention of get_report_records begins to separate it from siblings. It stops short of explicitly stating what filters scope the list, which keeps it from 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?

It gives a clear downstream step ('Use the id with get_report_records') and explains the pagination protocol, which is genuine usage guidance. However, it never says when to choose this over siblings like query_records or get_alignment_summary, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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