Get DataLens report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a meaningful nuance about the missing branch semantics (the read answers the measured saved version), but it omits permission requirements despite having include_permissions, and does not explain revision behavior.

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 content is short but front-loaded with a sentence fragment, and the second clause mixes the update contract and the discovery route into one paragraph. No sentence is wasted, but the structure is terse and lacks clear separation of concerns.

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 4-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers discovery, the update coupling, and branch semantics, but omits what entry.data and entry.meta actually contain, how include_permissions and include_favorite affect the response, and default behavior when rev_id is null.

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 the schema already documents entry_id, rev_id, include_favorite, and include_permissions. The description names entry.data and entry.meta from the response, which is forward-looking rather than parameter-level, so the baseline 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 names the resource ('One report') and enumerates its contents ('its slides and the charts and texts on them'), making the verb/resource specific. It does not directly contrast against sibling datalens_reports_update or datalens_dashboards_get, so it stops short of explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

It gives concrete guidance by pointing to reports_update for write-through of the returned data and to entries_list with scope=report for discovery. No explicit when-not-to-use statement, but the surrounding context is rich enough for an agent to route between the three report tools.

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