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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully notes that sections are filtered by what is visible to the current key, providing meaningful access-scoping context. However, it does not mention failure behavior, authentication requirements, or what happens for unpublished or missing reports.

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, information-dense sentence. Key facts are front-loaded: what the tool returns, by what identifier, and what content is included. There is no redundant or filler text.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with one required parameter and no output schema. The description lists the main returned categories, giving an agent enough expectation of the response. It omits edge-case details like not-found or error behavior, but for a metadata getter the core context is largely complete.

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 schema already defines report_id as an integer with bounds and a pointer to list_reports. The description adds only the notion of a 'published' report, providing no additional parameter format or usage detail. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly identifies the action (get), the resource (metadata for one published report), and the selection method (by id). It also lists expected contents (title, dates, sections visible), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_report_html and get_report_section that return content or specific sections.

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 alternatives. The schema's 'Report id from list_reports' hint implies a typical workflow, and 'metadata' suggests it is for overview rather than content retrieval, but no clear exclusion or alternative routing is stated.

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