saas_alerts_reports_get_scheduled

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no new behavioral context such as error handling, pagination, or response format, but it is consistent with the 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 a single, concise sentence of eight words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

For a simple get-by-ID tool, the description sufficiently conveys what the tool does and implies the return value (the scheduled report). While it lacks explicit details about failure modes or response structure, the simplicity and existing annotations make it adequate, falling just short of fully comprehensive.

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% since the only parameter 'report_id' is described as 'Scheduled report ID'. The description 'by its ID' merely repeats this, adding no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Get a specific scheduled report by its ID' clearly states a specific verb (Get), resource (scheduled report), and qualifier (by its ID). It distinguishes from siblings like list_scheduled, create_scheduled, and delete_scheduled by emphasizing specificity and ID-based 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 implies a clear usage condition: use this tool when you have a specific report ID and need that single report. It does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., 'for listing all reports, use list_scheduled'), but the context is unambiguous and the sibling list includes the obvious listing counterpart.

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