analytics_report_instances_get_instance

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it discloses nothing: no read-only nature, no pagination/field-selection behavior, no note that report instances are the data artifacts produced by analytics report requests, and no hint about what the response contains.

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?

It is short, but the single sentence duplicates itself (the same path printed twice) and carries zero informational payload. Brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description needed to explain what an analytics report instance is and what fetching one returns. It provides none of that, leaving the agent unable to use the tool confidently beyond the mechanical GET semantics.

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% and both parameters (id, fields_analyticsReportInstances) are documented in the schema itself, including the enum of fields. The description adds nothing beyond that, 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 is a bare restatement of the tool name as an HTTP path: 'GET /v1/analyticsReportInstances/{id} (GET /v1/analyticsReportInstances/{id})'. It conveys only that a single analyticsReportInstance is fetched by id, which the name already implies, and does nothing to distinguish it from siblings like analytics_reports_instances_get_to_many_related or analytics_report_instance_wait.

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?

No guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool, when to use the collection/related variants instead, or what prerequisites (ids derived from a report request) are needed. The agent must infer everything from the tool name.

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