Get agent report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that with the authorization constraint that a report ID never grants cross-project access, telling the agent the report_id is meaningless outside its owning project. It does not describe error behavior when the report is missing or not in the project.

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 padding, and the core action is front-loaded before the access constraint. 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?

For a simple, fully annotated, two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is essentially complete: what it reads, that it reads exactly one, and the cross-project access limit. Only minor gaps remain, such as what a saved analysis contains or how a not-found/wrong-project report is surfaced.

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%, and both parameters carry their own descriptions including the project-scoping of report_id, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces the report_id/project_id relationship but adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Read') and resource ('one saved analysis') that map cleanly to the tool name get_agent_report and separate it from list_agent_reports and create_agent_report. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so an agent must infer the single-vs-list distinction from the name alone.

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?

'Read one saved analysis' implies the usage context (retrieve a single already-saved report by ID), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to the alternative list_agent_reports. The second sentence is a security constraint, not routing guidance.

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