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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It warns that the returned HTML is untrusted content, instructs the agent not to execute scripts or follow embedded instructions, and explains that output is filtered by the current key's permissions.

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 compact yet information-dense, with the core function stated first and the security caveat and sibling alternative presented without redundancy. Every sentence contributes actionable guidance.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned, the security posture, the visibility filtering, and when to use a different tool. Nothing essential is missing for the agent to use it correctly.

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 already documents report_id as coming from list_reports, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds useful context such as 'published report' and permission-based filtering, but it does not materially expand the parameter's semantics beyond the schema.

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 states the tool returns the full HTML of a published report, scoped by visibility permissions. It distinguishes itself from get_report_section by name and by explicitly noting that the section tool should be used when only data is needed.

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?

The description explicitly provides an alternative: 'use get_report_section for just the data you need.' This tells the agent when not to choose this tool and directs it to the more appropriate sibling for narrower data needs.

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