list_analytics_report_instances

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only, non-destructive call and the flow conveys a pipeline dependency, but there is no mention of pagination, permissions, or result ordering beyond what the schema already shows. It adds modest context but leaves several behavioral questions unanswered.

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, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the workflow hint appended for orientation. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a list tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose and workflow position adequately. It does not describe return shape or pagination behavior, but with no output schema and complete parameter docs, the remaining gap is minor.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents reportId, limit, granularity, and processingDate. The description only reinforces the granularity values via '(daily/weekly/monthly files)' and adds no syntax, format, or interaction details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('generated instances ... of an analytics report'), and the parenthetical '(daily/weekly/monthly files)' clarifies exactly what an instance is. The flow line 'request -> reports -> instances -> segments -> download' positions it relative to siblings like list_analytics_reports and list_analytics_report_segments, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 embedded flow ('request -> reports -> instances -> segments -> download') tells the agent this tool sits after listing reports and before segments/download, which is genuine when-to-use guidance. It stops short of explicit exclusions or a named alternative, so it is clear context rather than full routing instructions.

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