Fetch query report data

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 covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: rows are returned as-is and output shape/size depend entirely on the underlying query, warning agents about potential large or variable responses. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose and ID requirement; the second delivers the critical behavioral warning. Information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining that rows are returned as-is and that output size varies, setting accurate expectations. It also implicitly covers pagination through the startIndex parameter in the schema. For a read-only report fetch with three well-documented parameters, this description is sufficiently complete.

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 schema already provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (reportId, limit, startIndex), including the fact that reportId comes from reports_query_reports_list. The description itself adds little new parameter-specific meaning; it reinforces the reportId source and suggests a small limit, but this is more usage advice than semantic enrichment. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetches') and names the exact resource ('rows and column metadata of a specific query report'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like reports_query_reports_list (listing reports) and reports_custom_report_data (custom reports). It also identifies the ID source, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 correctly points to reports_query_reports_list as the source for the report ID and advises a small limit on first call, which is useful operational guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for custom report data), but the reference to 'query report' and the sibling naming make the context clear.

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