get_output_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the default behavior (most recent output), the date-specific behavior, and the fallback semantics of 'latest output gathered on a specific date.' This is meaningful behavioral context beyond what the schema expresses, though it does not cover edge cases like missing outputs.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main purpose appears in the first sentence, and the only additional sentence explains the optional parameter behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

For a low-complexity read tool, the description is complete: it states the resource, the default behavior, the optional date behavior, and the parameters are fully covered by the schema. An output schema exists, so return-value details are already provided elsewhere, and no critical invocation detail is missing.

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?

Both parameters are already well described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining the default selection behavior and how gathered_date changes the result, but it does not significantly expand on the parameter meanings beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('gathered report output'), and it adds the purpose ('for compiling a report'). It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by clarifying it retrieves outputs, whereas list_reports_tool, get_spec_tool, and save_output_tool imply different purposes.

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 usage context is implied by the phrase 'for compiling a report' and by the optional date parameter, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not describe exclusions or mention sibling tools, so the agent must infer the appropriate moment to call it.

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