report_instances_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it 'gets' information, which implies a read operation, but does not disclose error handling, authentication needs, pagination, or the nature of 'detailed information'. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. The category prefix '[Analytics/Reports]' adds minimal context but could be considered fluff. Still, it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool has no annotations, low schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the purpose of the 'include' parameter, nor any conditions for using this tool. While the output schema may cover return values, the description fails to provide sufficient context for a correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter semantics. However, the description does not mention either parameter ('instance_id' or 'include'). 'instance_id' is self-explanatory from its name, but 'include' is obscure (likely an array of fields) and the description provides no clarification.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('detailed information about a specific analytics report instance'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like report_requests_get or report_segments_get. The verb and object are specific and unambiguous.

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 context is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or common scenarios. The sibling list includes many similar report-related tools, but the description offers no guidance on selection.

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