invoiceninja_get_report_result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the workflow dependency on invoiceninja_run_report, but says nothing about asynchronous behavior, timeouts, rate limits, pagination, or what happens when the report is not ready.

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?

A single sentence with no wasted words, and the key dependency on the sibling tool is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a tool whose schema already carries the parameter detail.

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?

The schema is rich and annotations cover safety, but the description does not mention the tool's asynchronous nature (e.g., returning an id if the report is not ready) or how rows are limited. It is minimally adequate, relying heavily on structured fields to fill the behavioral 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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond that baseline.

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?

States a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('rows of a report') and explicitly ties it to the sibling tool that starts the report. An agent can distinguish this from invoiceninja_run_report without opening either schema.

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 usage context by saying the report was 'started by invoiceninja_run_report,' so an agent understands this is a follow-up call. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternatives beyond that implication.

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