get_report_strings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose real behavior: the output is English source strings, brace placeholders must survive translation, and the code validates them to keep statistics exact. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and return shape, but the placeholder-validation contract is substantive behavioral context.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource statement, then a tight three-step numbered flow, then a one-line rationale. Every sentence earns its place and there is no 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating the returned content (all report sentences in English). With zero parameters and no annotations, the workflow plus placeholder-warning is everything an agent needs to call it and use the result correctly.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly needs to say nothing about parameter syntax and instead documents what the parameterless call returns.

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 first sentence states the resource clearly: every sentence the report can contain, in English, retrieved for translation. It does not name a verb explicitly (the 'get' is only in the tool name), and it does not differentiate itself from siblings like generate_report or describe_events by scope. Still, an agent can tell what it returns without opening the 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 gives an explicit conditional ('For a language other than en/ko/ja') followed by a numbered procedure, and names the destination tool (generate_report as custom_strings with lang="custom"). It effectively routes the agent between this tool and its downstream alternative.

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