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

With no annotations provided, the description alone must disclose behavior. It mentions 'full report content,' implying the return value includes the complete report body, but it does not state that the operation is read-only, what happens if the report doesn't exist, or any required permissions. This lack of disclosure for a bare get operation leaves significant gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It communicates the core function efficiently, though it omits necessary details. This is appropriately concise for the minimal information it provides.

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?

The tool is a simple get with two parameters, but the description is too sparse to be complete. It lacks return value specification, does not explain entity_id, and offers no guidance on when to use it. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context.

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 requires both report_id and entity_id, but the description only mentions report_id, giving it no explanation. Entity_id is completely undocumented in the description, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the agent must infer its meaning from the name alone. This is a critical gap for correct invocation.

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 tool as retrieving full report content using a report identifier. The verb 'Get' and resource 'full report content' make the primary action unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling report tools (e.g., annual_report, incident_report), so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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 no information on when to use this tool versus the sibling alternatives. It does not specify any exclusions, prerequisites, or usage context beyond the generic 'by report_id,' leaving the agent without guidance for tool selection.

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