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

With readOnlyHint=true already declared, the safety profile is covered by annotations; the description adds genuinely useful context that the response is metadata plus references to downloadable files, which matters given there is no output schema. The 'GET /reports/{id}' restatement of the endpoint adds little on its own.

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 compact sentences, no filler, with the resource and the id format front-loaded. Every clause carries information.

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 simple one-param read tool with annotations covering safety, the description supplies the one thing structured data does not: what the payload contains (metadata and downloadable files). It could say slightly more about the report object, but it is essentially sufficient.

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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the 'rpt_...' format. The description repeats the same prefix convention, adding no syntax or constraint information 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 states a specific verb (Get) and resource (metadata of a specific report) and scopes it to retrieval by id, which clearly separates it from the sibling checkout_list_reports. It does not name the sibling explicitly, but the by-id vs. list distinction is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied: call it when you already have an 'rpt_...' id. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. that the id must come from list_reports), and no named alternatives.

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