get_report_element_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the max_rows cap and the reason for it (protecting LLM context windows), plus the return shape. It omits whether this is purely a cached read, whether a refresh is required first, and what happens when the element is not a table/chart or when the row count exceeds the cap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the cap behavior, then the return shape. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

An output schema exists, so the return explanation is arguably redundant but harmless. However, for a 3-required-param tool at 0% schema coverage with no annotations, the description leaves the identifier parameters and the acquisition chain for those IDs unexplained, which is a meaningful 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%, so the description must compensate. It explains only max_rows (default 1000); webi_doc_id, report_id, and element_id — all three required — are left entirely undocumented, so an agent gets no help on where those identifiers come from or their expected format.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it extracts structured tabular data rows from a table or chart block in a report tab. This is clear enough to distinguish it from metadata-oriented siblings like get_report_elements, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. The reader must infer that element_id comes from a listing tool such as get_report_elements and that this tool is the data-retrieval step after get_reports/get_report_elements. No alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.

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