get_fbl_report_by_issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context—no mention of pagination, response format, or required input semantics. 'Python SDK parity' is vague and not actionable. The description fails to add value beyond annotations.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than concise efficiency. It provides no structured information, only the endpoint and an ambiguous note. Every sentence should earn its place; here the single 'sentence' does not.

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 is a 4-parameter tool with no output schema and minimal annotation context. The description does nothing to explain the operation, its expected input, or its result. It is completely inadequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 only 25% (only dry_run has a description). The description provides no information about any parameters, including the required 'issuen'. It does not compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving three parameters entirely undocumented.

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 merely restates the tool name in URL form ('GET /api/v2/issue/report/fbl') plus a vague note about Python SDK parity. It does not state what the tool does, what an FBL report is, or how 'by issue' differs from 'by date'. This is essentially a tautology.

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 usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_fbl_report_by_date or get_non_delivery_by_issue. The description gives zero context on selection.

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