analytics_reports__get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the HTTP endpoint but no additional behavioral details like return format, pagination, or rate limits. With annotations present, a 3 is appropriate as it does not contradict and adds minimal context.

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 a single sentence with the key action and endpoint, zero waste. It is front-loaded and immediately comprehensible.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with complete schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is sufficient. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the straightforward purpose, though a bit more detail on return values could enhance completeness.

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' and 'fields_analyticsReports') have clear descriptions. The tool description itself adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states 'Read one analytics report by ID' with a specific verb ('Read'), resource ('analytics report'), and scope ('by ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like analytics_reports__instances__list. The endpoint reference adds clarity.

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?

The description implies usage through 'by ID' but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives. It lacks guidance on when not to use it (e.g., when needing multiple reports) or mention of related list/get siblings. The prerequisite of having an ID from a list call is only in the schema, not the description.

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