get_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions report types and date formats but lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what the output contains, or any rate limits. The description is insufficient for a tool with three parameters and an output schema.

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 brief and front-loaded with essential information in two sentences. It efficiently lists report types and date format without unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate. It covers basic purpose and parameter hints but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The output schema may handle return values, but the description doesn't compensate for missing annotations or fully explain parameter semantics.

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 description adds some meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It specifies valid report types and date format, clarifying the purpose of report_type and the format for start_date and end_date. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions or default behaviors, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 states the action ('Get') and resource ('financial report'), and provides specific report types. It distinguishes this as a retrieval tool among siblings that include creation, deletion, and update operations, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get_' tools like get_client or get_invoice.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description lists report types, it doesn't specify scenarios for choosing this over other tools or mention prerequisites like authentication. The context is implied but not explicit.

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