Reports Get Report Data

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the annotations, which already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. It does not mention aggregation semantics, default grouping, output modes, or any transformation logic. The description neither contradicts the annotations nor enriches them.

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 only three words, which is under-specification rather than purposeful conciseness. While it is inherently concise, it lacks structural orientation such as key concepts, defaults, or examples that would help an agent use the tool effectively.

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?

This tool has multiple aggregation parameters, a large nested filter object, no output schema, and no behavioral description. One sentence provides almost no actionable context for an agent to understand what data is returned, how filters combine, how grouping affects results, or what output_mode should be selected. Given the tool's complexity, this description is fundamentally inadequate.

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?

With only 29% schema description coverage and no parameter explanations in the description, the agent must infer meaning from names like filters, group_by, and fill_empty_values. The schema documents fields and output_mode, but the complex TransactionFilterInput and aggregation parameters remain unexplained, and the description does nothing to compensate.

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 'Get report data' is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title, providing no differentiation from the sibling reports_get_saved_report, which also retrieves report-related data. It names a verb and resource at a very abstract level but gives no indication of what a 'report' is in this context or what data it returns.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like reports_get_saved_report, reports_list_saved_reports, or the broader transaction/aggregation tools. The description provides no context for selection, prerequisites, or typical scenarios.

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