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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the exact return shape (id, title, description, URL, html, text), but says nothing about error behavior for a bad/missing id, permissions, or why both html and text are always returned despite the format flag.

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 tight sentences: what it does, what it returns, and a use case. Front-loaded with the action and zero filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by listing return fields, and the 100%-covered input schema covers parameters. The remaining hole is sibling disambiguation against get_report, which is material in a 44-tool namespace.

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% and both parameters are documented there, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'optionally as plain text' loosely maps to the format enum but adds no meaning beyond the schema's own 'Which content shape to emphasize. Both are always returned.'

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 and resource ('Fetch a report by id') and even enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_report' (nor from list_reports/search_reports), leaving the core selection question unanswered.

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?

'Use to read another agent's prior report as context' gives one scenario, which is more than nothing but far from explicit when/when-not guidance. With a near-identical sibling (get_report) in the toolset, the description should route between them and does not.

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