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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true and non-idempotence, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the row shape — that `attributes` follows the configured column order and that `value` is null for missing attributes. It does not mention the `filters`/`pagination` response members or that the report must be pre-created, which the schema only gestures at.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the row semantics; no filler or hedging. The second and third sentences earn their place by explaining non-obvious null semantics, though the first sentence is near-tautological.

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 six-parameter tool with threshold/filter/pagination arguments and no output schema, the description explains row values but not the overall response envelope (`filters`, `pagination`) or the prerequisite that the report already exists. It is adequate because the schema is fully documented, but it leaves the read-then-call workflow unstated.

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 every parameter including page, threshold, version_id, event_type_id and occurred_after is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, 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?

"Show a player report" names a verb and resource, but the verb is essentially a restatement of the tool name and the description never clarifies how this differs from the many sibling report readers (list_player_reports, run_report, get_character_report, get_attribute_report). An agent can tell it fetches a stored report by ID, but must infer the distinction from the name alone.

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: nothing says to call list_player_reports first to obtain an `id`, nothing says when to prefer this over run_report or get_character_report, and no exclusions are stated. The dependency on an existing report ID is implicit only in the schema's required field.

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