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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and 'read-only' in the description is largely redundant. The one genuinely additive fact is 'report_id maps to doc id', a non-obvious behavioral mapping, but nothing on auth, pagination, or errors is added.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences led by the verb, with no filler and the endpoint detail tucked at the end. Sized appropriately for a simple lookup tool.

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?

With no output schema and six parameters, the definition is minimal but functional: it discloses the endpoint, the read-only nature, and the id mapping. However it omits any return-value shape and any routing guidance against the many report siblings, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent.

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 high (83%), so the baseline is 3, and the description adds real meaning by explaining that report_id maps to a doc id — semantics the schema (bare 'number' for report_id) does not capture. The auth-ish params (api_token, access_token, app_password, account_id) are left entirely to 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Gets a saved/shared report') and even names the underlying endpoint GET /docs/:report_id. The singular 'a report' implicitly distinguishes it from list_reports, but it never explicitly names sibling tools like list_reports or delete_report, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 statement of when to use this versus list_reports or any alternative, nor any when-not guidance. 'Limitations: read-only' is a behavioral constraint rather than usage direction, so the agent must infer that this fetches a single report by id.

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