generate_report

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that it relies on pre-assembled ResearchSections and performs no research, which clarifies its internal behavior. However, it does not disclose what the 'standard report envelope' entails or any side effects, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 primary purpose, and no unnecessary detail. It earns every word.

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?

Combined with a detailed schema, the description provides sufficient context: it clarifies the tool's role as an assembler, not a researcher, and specifies usage timing. It could mention optional top-level fields, but the schema covers structure. The 'standard report envelope' is a bit ambiguous without an output schema, but still adequate.

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 description summarizes the core structure of the 'sections' parameter (summary, tables, citations, confidence), which helps understand the main argument. Top-level parameters like subtitle and companyName are not mentioned, but their names are self-explanatory. It partially compensates for the schema 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 uses a specific verb 'assembles' and resource 'structured research report' from ResearchSections. It clearly distinguishes from research-gathering tools by stating 'this tool does no research of its own,' making its role 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?

Explicitly states when to use ('Use after gathering facts with other tools') and what it does not do ('does no research of its own'). It doesn't name specific alternative tools, but the sibling list and context make the intended workflow clear.

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