read_report

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the structure of what comes back (sections of the saved report), which is useful, but says nothing about truncation behavior, error handling for an unknown report_id, or whether reads are side-effect free. With an output schema present, the return-shape gap is partially covered elsewhere, keeping this at a 3.

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?

One sentence, zero filler, with the scope ('in full') front-loaded before the enumerated contents. The list of sections is long but each element carries real meaning about what the caller receives.

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 output schema covers return values and the description covers the conceptual contents, but the tool's most consequential behavior for callers — that a large report may be cut at max_chars — is left unstated, as is what a bad report_id produces. Adequate for a simple read tool, but the truncation omission matters given the 'in full' promise.

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 0%, so the description must explain the two parameters and it largely does not. report_id is only implied by the '(from list_reports)' reference; max_chars (default 60000) is never mentioned even though its presence implies silent truncation of a report that is otherwise promised 'in full'.

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 (read) and resource (saved report), and then enumerates exactly what 'in full' contains: analyst reports, bull/bear debate, trader plan, risk debate, final decision. It also anchors the resource to the sibling that produces it (list_reports), so an agent can distinguish it from list_reports and annotate_report.

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 parenthetical '(from list_reports)' tells the agent the prerequisite workflow: get an id from list_reports, then read it here. There is no explicit when-not guidance or mention of alternatives, but for a read-by-id tool the usage context is clear and the sibling naming does most of the routing work.

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