get_report_builder_get_standard_report_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that this is a GET request, which implies read-only behavior, but it does not mention permissions, required headers beyond a vague 'any required request headers,' pagination behavior, or error characteristics. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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 short and mostly front-loaded. The endpoint and HTTP method appear first, followed by parameter placement guidance. The opening phrase 'Report Settings' is mildly redundant, but the description contains no significant 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?

The description is not complete enough for an agent to call this reliably. It tells the agent to provide 'route IDs in path_params,' yet the shown endpoint has no path placeholders and no route ID names are given. It also omits the body parameter entirely and leaves filter and pagination syntax undefined, though the output schema does cover return values.

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?

With 0% schema coverage and four generic object parameters, the description adds some useful meaning: route IDs belong in path_params, filters and pagination belong in query, and request headers belong in headers. However, it does not name specific route IDs, filter fields, or pagination parameters, so it only partially compensates for the schema's complete lack of detail.

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 names the endpoint and HTTP method but never states the operation in domain terms like 'retrieves the standard report settings.' It is more than a pure tautology because the endpoint itself implies the purpose, yet it does not clearly distinguish what this tool returns compared to sibling report-builder tools.

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 guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as post_report_builder_update_standard_report_settings or get_report_builder_standard_reports. The description only explains how to place parameters, not when this tool is appropriate or when it is not.

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