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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read operation. The description adds useful context by saying the response includes metadata and downloadable files, but it does not mention error behavior, pagination, or whether report generation must be complete first.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The purpose and id format are front-loaded, and the API endpoint mapping is compact and useful.

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-parameter read tool with a fully described id schema and readOnly annotation, the description is nearly complete and even notes that downloadable files are included. It falls short only on explicitly routing the agent from list_reports or explaining when a report id is valid.

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 100%, so the id parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including the 'rpt_...' example. The description repeats that format but adds no meaning beyond the structured schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 metadata of a specific report by id. It also distinguishes retrieval by id from the sibling list_reports operation and names the id prefix, so an agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'by id' implies this tool is used when a report id is already known, and the sibling list_reports suggests an alternative for discovery. However, the description never explicitly says when to use this versus list_reports or where to obtain the id, leaving usage to inference.

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