RunBusinessReports

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior on its own. It mentions the AU-only limitation and the new-or-existing organisation target, but does not reveal whether running reports creates or updates records, returns data synchronously, triggers external reporting, or has side effects.

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?

One short sentence with no filler and the key scope constraint included. It could be slightly clearer by explaining what 'Report(s)' means or replacing 'new or existing' with a more natural phrase, but it is efficiently sized.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description bears the burden of telling the agent what happens when the tool runs. It does not explain which reports are available, how results are returned, whether any parameters are expected at runtime, or whether the operation has side effects.

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 schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds target context by specifying 'new or existing organisation entity' and AUS Only, which is all that can be expected here.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Run Report(s)' against an 'organisation entity', and adds an AUS-only scope. It is specific enough to separate it from general entity/document tools, though it does not say what kind of reports are produced or how it differs from business-query siblings.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as BusinessOwnershipQuery, InternationalBusinessProfile, or the many document tools. The AUS-only and organisation-entity hints imply a use case, but no alternatives or exclusions are named.

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