get_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals data-retention behavior (30-day expiry) and a staleness caveat, but says nothing about what happens for an expired/missing report, auth requirements, or rate limits.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the fetch action and the id explanation, with the staleness warning earning its place as actionable context. No filler.

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 single-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is returned (a saved check), its lifetime, and when to prefer a fresh run. Only error/expiry behavior and output shape are left unspecified, which is a modest gap.

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 0% and the single parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate — and it does, explaining that the id is the code at the end of a report URL. It does not reconcile that 'id' with the schema's actual parameter name 'trace_id', a minor gap.

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 ('Fetch a saved RugRadar check by its id') and clarifies exactly what the id is (the code at the end of a rugradar-dun.vercel.app/r/... link). This lets an agent distinguish this retrieval tool from the sibling check_token, which runs a fresh check.

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?

Gives clear context for use — saved checks live 30 days — and names the alternative: 'Re-run check_token before relying on an old one: tokens change fast.' It does not address the other siblings (scan_message, token_history, explain_finding), so it falls just short of fully explicit routing.

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