download_report_instance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context by stating 'every segment', which implies the tool automatically handles all segments, and 'parsed rows', indicating transformation. However, it doesn't disclose potential performance implications, rate limits, or how truncation behaves beyond what the schema already covers. With annotations present, a 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler: 'Download every segment of a report instance and return the parsed rows.' Every word adds value, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the 100% schema coverage, existing output schema, and annotations, the description is largely complete. It states the core action and scope ('every segment', 'parsed rows'), while the schema covers parameter semantics and the output schema covers return format. It doesn't mention any caveats like potentially large responses, but the max_rows and max_bytes parameters in the schema already address that. A small gap is the lack of context on what a 'report instance' is, though instance_id's source is documented in the schema.

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 fully documents all three parameters (instance_id, max_rows, max_bytes) including their defaults and purposes. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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 uses a specific verb ('Download') and a specific resource ('every segment of a report instance') and clarifies the output ('parsed rows'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_report_segments (listing vs downloading) and download_sales_report/download_finance_report (which target specific report types, not arbitrary report instances).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling tools such as download_sales_report or list_report_segments, nor does it state that this is the tool for obtaining full report instance data as opposed to other download tools. The only implied usage is that it downloads report instances, but that's not sufficient to route an agent correctly.

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