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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations: held or rejected reports return only their state, and the result mirrors GET /api/reports/<id>/status, which sets expectations about completeness of the payload.

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?

Front-loads the identifier and its format, then lists the return fields in one compact sentence with the partial-response caveat following. Efficient, though the long enumeration makes it slightly dense for a single read.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the burden of describing return values: state, verdict change, retests, URL, and the reduced payload for held/rejected reports. It omits error behavior for unknown ids, but is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

Only one parameter, but schema coverage is 0% and the description's note that the id is 'r_ + 16 hex' merely restates the regex pattern already in the schema. It does not say where an id can be obtained or what happens with a malformed or unknown id, so it adds little beyond the structured field.

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 (get a field report's status) and enumerates exactly what the response contains: review state, verdict impact, retests, and public URL. It is clearly distinct from siblings like submit_field_report and add_report_followup, which create or append rather than read status.

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 implies the tool is for looking up a single report by id, but never states when to use it versus alternatives or any prerequisites (e.g., where the id comes from, what to do for bulk or missing reports). Usage is inferred rather than spelled out.

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