Get report

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the return content shape (added/changed/removed passages with before/after text) and important lifecycle states: report_not_ready before completion and content_deleted after retention. It does not cover invalid-ID behavior or the full response structure, but with annotations already declaring read-only/idempotent behavior this is a useful addition.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose, then follows with the alternative tool and lifecycle states. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, it sufficiently explains the main returned content and special report states. It could more fully specify the changes object or edge cases, but the description covers what an agent needs to invoke and interpret it correctly.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single document_id parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description does not add any further parameter-level meaning, making the baseline score 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?

The description concretely defines the tool as retrieving the change report produced by edit_document, including what the changes list contains. It also explicitly distinguishes it from get_document, which is for status and download links.

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?

It names the alternative get_document and the condition for using it (status and download links), which gives clear routing guidance. It implies the use case for get_report through the first sentence but does not spell out a full when-to-use/when-not-to-use rule.

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