report_customer_site_summary

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds that the tool correlates data across entities and returns CSV or JSON. No contradiction; the description enriches the safety profile with behavioral details about data correlation and output format.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope. Every sentence adds value: purpose, correlation detail, output options. No redundancy or 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?

Given one optional parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description fully explains what the tool does, the data it correlates, and its output formats. It is complete for this simple report tool.

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?

The single 'format' parameter has a full schema description (100% coverage). The tool description echoes 'Returns CSV or JSON' but does not add new parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Generate', the resource 'summary report', and the specific scope: 'all customers with their sites, device counts'. It distinguishes from sibling report tools like report_devices_bulk or report_org_hierarchy by focusing on customer-site-device correlation.

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 implies usage for generating a cross-data summary but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., report_org_hierarchy for org structure). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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