get_report_result_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or the nature of the response (e.g., whether it is read-only, if pagination is supported, or how errors are handled). Although querying data is implicitly read-only, this is not stated, and no operational context is given beyond the action itself.

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 exceptionally concise—a single clear sentence followed by a short parenthetical business note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary verbiage. The parenthetical is slightly redundant but does not detract from clarity. This earns a high score for efficiency.

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 data-retrieval tool without an output schema, the description should explain what the response looks like (e.g., structure of rows/columns), how pagination works (even though 'first' is in the schema, its role in iterating results is not described), and any edge cases (e.g., invalid report ID). None of this is covered, leaving the agent with an underspecified contract for invoking and consuming the tool.

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?

The input schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters (id and first), including default and max values for first. The description adds no extra semantic insight beyond what the schema already documents, so it meets the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage. No additional context like dependencies or acceptable value ranges is provided.

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 the verb (조회/query) and the specific resource (report result data with row/column values). It distinctly identifies the tool's function—retrieving actual result data for a given report ID—which differentiates it from siblings like get_reports, which presumably lists reports rather than their data. This is a specific and unambiguous 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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as first obtaining a report ID from get_reports. The description only states the business requirement ('report data extraction and automation') without instructing the agent on the correct workflow or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the schema alone.

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