read_report

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: each table is returned with its immediately preceding heading, and the rationale for this design is explained. It also summarizes the return shape.

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 compact and front-loaded, stating the core operation in the first sentence, followed by a brief behavioral rule, return summary, and short usage examples. Every sentence earns its place; the rationale for heading attachment is useful rather than 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 read-only single-parameter tool with an existing output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when not to use it. The non-obvious behavior of attaching preceding headings is explicitly stated, so an agent can invoke the tool correctly without surprises.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema with type, title, and description including an example file name. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description need not add much; the example C05.docx provides a small extra hint but does not carry a heavy semantic burden.

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?

Clearly identifies the operation: reading the structure of a verification .docx report, attaching preceding headings to each table, and returning table-level metadata plus task codes. The 'not use' example explicitly contrasts with extract_report_claims and verify_claims, helping an agent distinguish it from siblings.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (asking what tables exist in the report) and when not to use it (comparing values, in which case extract_report_claims → verify_claims is the path). This gives the agent a clear routing decision.

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