get_study_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It warns that an empty or 'not found' response means the report hasn't been generated, gives a step-by-step recovery workflow, and describes the return format (markdown/structured with qualitative insights, quantitative data, Q&A analysis, recommendations).

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose, followed by necessary workflow details and recovery steps. Every sentence adds value, and the structure moves from summary to prerequisites to recovery to return format, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (dependency on prior generation, possible missing states, and multi-step recovery), the description is complete. It covers prerequisites, verification, failure handling, return content, and the single parameter, making it sufficient even without annotations.

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 provides no description for study_id (0% coverage), but the description explicitly states 'Args: study_id: The unique identifier of the study.' This adds basic semantic meaning beyond the bare schema, though it is minimal and mostly aligns with the parameter name.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve the full comprehensive study report combining all analytics.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_study_summary, get_qualitative_insights, and get_analytics_status, which serve more granular or alternative retrieval purposes.

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 states the prerequisite: 'This report must be generated first using generate_study_report.' It also instructs the agent to verify readiness via get_analytics_status and provides a detailed recovery path with alternative tool calls, making when-to-use and recovery behavior unambiguous.

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