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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating authorization requirements and restricting output to metadata/approved fields with no secrets, contacts, or original files.

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 two tight sentences with the main action front-loaded and no wasted wording. Every phrase contributes either scope or data-handling constraints.

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?

The description omits how the four parameters should be used, especially targetId and pagination/filtering fields, and there is no output schema to compensate. For a tool with 0% schema description coverage, this leaves an agent under-informed about invocation details.

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 four parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description explains none of them. It does not clarify the role of targetId, query, limit, or offset, so an agent must infer parameter usage entirely from names and constraints.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Read authorised report definition." It is clear what the tool retrieves, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_report_definitions.

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 list_report_definitions or report-generation tools. The intended use is only implied by the name and the word "definition."

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