report_get

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

Since no annotations are present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state that the operation is a read/query ('조회한다') of a single detail, which implies it is not destructive and not a list operation. However, it does not describe response shape, error cases, or access implications.

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 with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the core action and resource are front-loaded.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description plus the schema is enough to know how to invoke it: call with a report history number. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves the agent to infer what the returned 'detail' contains and what failure modes might occur.

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 already documents the only parameter 'no' fully as '리포트 이력 번호(no)' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the overall action, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb '조회한다' (retrieves) with a precise resource: '리포트 발행 이력 한 건의 상세' (a single report publication history detail). This clearly indicates a get-one-item operation and distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like report_list, though it does not explicitly name the sibling.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool rather than report_list, report_months, or report_v2_html. There is also no mention of a prerequisite such as obtaining the history number from a list call first.

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