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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and access profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact: `include` inlines sub-blocks into a single response rather than requiring follow-up calls. It says nothing about errors on unknown/invalid section names or defaults.

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 action front-loaded and the optional parameter guidance second. Every clause earns its place by naming the mechanism and giving a usable example.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be re-explained, and the description adequately covers both the identity parameter and the optional expansion parameter. It could be tighter about what happens when `include` is omitted or contains an unrecognized section, but nothing prevents a correct call.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It does this well for `include` by giving a concrete example array that effectively enumerates the valid section values — information absent from an untyped string array in the schema. `report_id` is left to the reader's obvious inference as the report identifier.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('one report by id'), and the singular 'one report' plus 'by id' implicitly contrasts with the sibling search_reports. However, it never names the alternative (search_reports, get_report_section) outright, so differentiation relies on inference.

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?

It gives one concrete usage cue — use `include` to inline sub-blocks in a single response — which tells the agent how to batch related data. It does not say when to prefer this over get_report_section or search_reports, leaving the selection decision unaddressed.

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