Get LINE OA Report (multi-day digest)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by disclosing T-2 data lag, privacy floor masking, and demographic availability conditions, which are beyond the annotations and guide agent expectations.

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 well-structured with a summary, Args, Returns, Notes, and Examples. It provides essential information without excessive verbosity, though could be slightly more concise by trimming redundant phrasing.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description includes a detailed return structure and important notes on data lag and privacy. It covers the tool's complexity (bundling 8+ API calls) well, but could enhance completeness by mentioning error handling or invalid OA id behavior.

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 input schema has only 33% description coverage (only range has a description). However, the tool description provides a comprehensive Args section with allowed values, defaults, and examples for all three parameters (range, oa, response_format), adding significant meaning beyond the schema. The returns block also details the output structure, compensating for the lack of output 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 it generates a digest of LINE OA performance over a date range, bundling multiple Insight API calls into a Thai-friendly markdown report. It distinguishes itself from siblings, which handle tasks like audience building, messaging, and settings management, as the only reporting tool.

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 implicitly indicates use when a digest of OA performance is needed, and includes critical notes about T-2 data lag and privacy floors, helping the agent understand data reliability. It could explicitly state when not to use (e.g., for real-time or granular data), but the context is sufficient for appropriate usage.

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