Get LINE OA Report (multi-day digest)

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description adds critical behavioral details: data lags T-2, a privacy floor of ~20 users, and that demographics require enough consented friends. These are not captured by annotations and significantly help an agent understand data limitations.

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 extremely concise, using just three sentences. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, then covers parameter details, behavioral caveats, and the return structure. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 there is no output schema, the description's outline of the return fields ('oa_id, range, delivery{total,daily[]}, followers, demographic_available, quota, notes[]') is sufficient. It also explains key data limitations. The tool has moderate complexity (3 params), and the description covers essential context for use.

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 provides rich context for the 'range' parameter, including all preset strings, default, and custom object format. This compensates for the schema's 33% description coverage. However, it does not describe the 'oa' or 'response_format' parameters, though the response_format is partially covered by mentioning markdown report and the return structure.

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 it is a 'Digest of LINE OA performance over a date range' and specifies it bundles 8+ API calls into a Thai-friendly report. This differentiates it from sibling tools like line_get_message_stats or line_list_followers, which provide individual metrics. The verb 'get' and resource 'report' are specific.

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 explains the date range parameter and its formats, including presets and custom ranges, and provides defaults. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. The usage is implied but not guided with exclusions or alternatives.

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