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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the content and explicitly states that raw data is excluded, setting expectations. It does not mention error behavior or performance, but for a simple read-only tool this is adequate.

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 concise, with two short sentences in different languages that reinforce the same message. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no wasted words.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It lists the included components (metadata, counts, AI bug summary) and excludes raw data. It could mention output format or error handling, but that is not critical for such a focused overview tool.

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 description does not explain the report_id parameter, and schema description coverage is 0%. However, the parameter name is self-explanatory and the tool requires only one. The description does not add semantic value beyond the schema, but the low parameter complexity limits the impact.

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 retrieves a report overview containing metadata, counts, and an AI bug summary, and explicitly excludes raw data. This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_console_logs or get_rrweb_events, which focus on raw data.

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 provides clear context on what the tool returns (an overview, not raw data) and implicitly signals that it is appropriate for high-level report summaries. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks strong exclusionary guidance.

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