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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond those annotations — no mention of pagination behavior, report freshness, or that results are filtered server-side.

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 a single four-word fragment with zero waste, so nothing is padded. However, brevity here comes at the cost of under-specification rather than economical communication.

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 five-parameter report tool with filtering and pagination but no output schema, the description leaves critical gaps: it never explains what an event report returns, how filters combine, or that the ID originates from a create/list tool. It is far from complete relative to the tool's complexity.

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 parameters (id, page, threshold, version_id, occurred_after) are already fully documented in the schema, including pagination semantics. The description adds no meaning 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?

The description "Show an event report" essentially restates the tool name (get_event_report) with no added specificity. It does not say what an event report contains or how it differs from the long list of sibling report getters (get_attribute_report, get_player_report, get_session_report, run_report).

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g., that a report ID must come from create_report or list_event_reports), and no alternatives mentioned. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and sibling list.

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