tokportal_create_analytics_report

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it warns against sending Idempotency-Key, explains the sensitive nature of the response (secret, not stored in ledger), and details the rejection behavior (400 error). This is valuable for a non-idempotent, potentially destructive operation. However, it does not mention required permissions or rate limits.

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 (4 sentences) with no tautology or fluff. It is front-loaded with the purpose and each sentence adds critical information: what it creates, what it returns, idempotency key warning, and rejection behavior.

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 the tool has a complex nested parameter (11 properties) and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects (return value, idempotency key rejection) but does not describe the full response structure or provide usage examples. It is adequate for the complexity level.

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 100% with all parameters well-documented in the schema (types, formats, maxLength, etc.). The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters (e.g., does not explain the purpose of 'brandName' or 'countries'). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the burden.

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 tool creates an analytics web report and returns a bearer-like access token and URL. It specifies the verb 'create' and resource 'analytics web report', distinguishing it from sibling tools like tokportal_get_analytics_dashboard and tokportal_export_analytics_report_html.

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 advises against sending an Idempotency-Key but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative analytics tools (e.g., tokportal_get_analytics_dashboard for viewing reports, tokportal_export_analytics_report_html for exports). Usage context is implied by the purpose but not explicitly differentiated.

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