build_executive_report

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses idempotency ('re-running replaces the sheet') and describes output components in detail. Lacks mention of permissions or prerequisites but is otherwise transparent.

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?

Single paragraph is information-dense and front-loaded with purpose. Slightly dense but efficient; could be broken into bullet points for clarity.

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 8 parameters, 1 required, and output schema exists, description covers purpose, key behavior (idempotency), and report content. Could mention prerequisites (e.g., simulation must be run) but overall 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3). Description adds value by explaining what each component of the report includes (e.g., headline stats, tornado of top N drivers), which clarifies how parameters like primary_output and top_drivers affect the output.

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?

Description explicitly states it builds an executive report for a decision-maker, lists specific components (headline numbers, histogram, tornado, etc.), and distinguishes from siblings by contrasting with 'raw stats'.

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?

Provides a clear usage scenario: 'Use this when the user asks for a decision-maker-facing summary rather than raw stats.' Does not explicitly mention alternative tools like get_simulation_results, but the context is sufficient.

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