Run an analytics report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses auth requirements and the special behavior of 'meta' vs. other reports. However, it does not mention side effects, error conditions, or rate limits. The behavioral info is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured. No wasted words.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description should explain return values. It mentions 'meta' returns filterable queues but not what others return. Also lacks details on pagination or result format. Given the tool's complexity, it is partially complete but has gaps.

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 50%, and the description adds the distinction between 'meta' and other reports regarding filters. However, the schema already describes the filter parameter example. The description provides modest additional value beyond the schema.

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 'Run a Tickiti analytics report' with specific report types (meta, resolutions, etc.) and distinguishes from siblings like query_tickets and list_endpoints. It uses a specific verb and resource, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 provides prerequisites ('requires the reports plan + admin') and explains when to use 'meta' versus other reports ('returns the filterable queues; the others accept date/queue filters'). It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives among siblings, but the context is clear.

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