Reports_getReport

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the core behavior (returns details, possibly including reportDocumentId) and an unusual environment trait (runs in Kuudo deployment, not here), but it does not state auth requirements, error behavior, or other operational effects. For a read-oriented getter this is adequate but not rich.

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 to the point, with no redundant elaboration. The front-loaded 'Catalog entry' is slightly cryptic, but the rest is efficient and scannable.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description must provide enough to invoke it correctly, but it leaves the report identifier parameter undefined and provides no return structure beyond reportDocumentId. The deployment caveat is useful but the missing invocation detail is a significant 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?

The schema defines zero properties, yet the description says the tool acts on 'the report that you specify,' implying an input that is never named. additionalProperties:true does not tell an agent what key to use for the report identifier, so the description fails to compensate for the empty schema.

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 identifies the operation as returning report details for a specified report and highlights the reportDocumentId field, which helps distinguish it from document-content retrieval siblings like Reports_getReportDocument. The opening 'Catalog entry' and deployment note add some ambiguity about whether this is directly callable, so it stops short of a 5.

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 provides some usage context—'Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here'—which signals that the tool is not meant to be invoked in the current environment. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or naming of alternatives such as Reports_getReportDocument or Reports_getReports.

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