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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, and the description confirms it by naming the HTTP method (GET) and endpoint. It adds the returned field list, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or whether unshared/archived reports are included.

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 sentences with zero filler; the purpose and returned fields are front-loaded before the technical endpoint detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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, the description usefully covers the return shape, and with no parameters and a read-only annotation there is little else an agent needs. Behavior around large result sets or filtering is not addressed, but the omission is minor.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. The description goes slightly further by documenting the response fields (id, name, description) even though there are no inputs to describe.

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 (List) and resource (saved reports from the Reports module) and even specifies the returned fields (id, name, description). It implicitly differentiates from siblings like get_report_summary and get_report_tabular_data, though it never names them.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance. With siblings get_report_summary and get_report_tabular_data in the same module, the agent must infer that this tool is the discovery step, but the description never states that or when to prefer each alternative.

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