analytics_report_requests_get_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no authentication requirements, no rate limits, no note on whether the resource may be absent, and no statement of what is returned. The path string itself is not behavioral disclosure.

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 parenthetical duplicates the sentence word-for-word, so half the text is pure redundancy rather than earned conciseness. Brevity here comes from omission, not from tight editing.

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?

A five-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to explain retrieval semantics and the sparse-fieldset/include behavior; instead it supplies only a path. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is present.

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 already documents id, include, limit_reports and both fields_* filters. The description adds nothing beyond that, which lands at the baseline of 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 verbatim restatement of the tool name as a REST path, duplicated inside parentheses. It tells the agent nothing beyond 'GET this resource by id' — no scope, no mention of what an analytics report request is, and no differentiation from the dozens of neighboring analytics_report_* siblings. This is tautology rather than a stated purpose.

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 indication of when to call this versus alternatives. The sibling set contains analytics_report_requests_reports_get_to_many_related, apps_analytics_report_requests_get_to_many_related, analytics_report_requests_create_instance and others; the description offers no routing guidance whatsoever.

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