get_commissary_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral information by specifying the return format as CSV, which is not in the schema or annotations. It does not disclose authentication, rate limits, or pagination, but with annotations present, a 3 is appropriate.

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 short and front-loaded, containing no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to stating the resource and output format. It is appropriately concise for a simple two-parameter report tool.

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 the simple schema, the readOnly/openWorld annotations, and the lack of an output schema, the description provides the essential output format but omits usage context. It does not explain what a commissary transaction report contains or when an agent should prefer it over other tools. For this level of complexity, it is minimally complete.

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 fully documents both required parameters with their YYYY-MM-DD format. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as whether the date range is inclusive or what happens if omitted. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific resource ('Commissary transaction report') and output format ('as CSV'), so the agent knows what it returns. However, it is a fragment without a verb and does not explicitly distinguish itself from the menu-focused sibling tools. It is adequate but not sharp enough for a 4.

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 gives no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. There is no context signal from siblings since none of them are reports. This is essentially no usage guidance.

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