Read one public report

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it reveals that a report can be in a 'processing' state and that no score is available until it finishes, which the agent wouldn't know from annotations alone. This goes beyond the schema and annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the report contents in the first sentence, then provides usage guidance in the second paragraph. It avoids unnecessary details and is easy to scan. The only minor inefficiency is the long list in the first sentence, but it's still readable and purposeful.

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 output schema, the description covers what the report contains, how to invoke it after creation, and the processing state caveat. It doesn't mention error handling or rate limits, but these are not critical for this simple read operation. The information provided is sufficient for an agent to use the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the reportId parameter is already well-documented as the ID from create_report or list_reports. The description does not add extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is 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 clearly states the tool reads one full public report and enumerates its contents (score, industry, demand, prompts, competitors, answers, sources, contact requests). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_reports (which lists) and create_report (which creates) by focusing on the full detail retrieval.

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?

The description explicitly tells the agent to call this after create_report to check if the report finished and to read its findings. It also warns that a report still processing carries no score, which is practical guidance. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like list_reports for summaries, the context makes the appropriate usage clear.

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