get_report

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the return surface and, usefully, the semantics of status flags (done+complete vs delivery_complete), which is real context. However, it says nothing about read-only safety, permissions, error states, or what happens for an unknown/expired check_id.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the core payload is front-loaded before the status-flag clarification. Efficient, though the status explanation is compressed to the point of being cryptic.

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?

The description partially substitutes for the missing output schema by enumerating returned fields, which is genuinely helpful. But with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required identifier, gaps remain around input sourcing, auth, and failure behavior.

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% and the single parameter check_id is undocumented in both schema and description. Since coverage is far below 50%, the description is expected to compensate for the opaque identifier, and it does not — no hint of where a check_id comes from or its format.

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 names a specific verb (Get) and enumerates the concrete payload: live status, newest link, sampled engagement counts, and raw/reviewed file paths. It is clearly a read/retrieval of a per-check report, distinguishable from get_transcript and submit_review, though it never defines what a 'report' or 'check' actually is.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of any sibling alternative. The second sentence explains how to interpret status values, which is output semantics rather than a trigger condition, so an agent gets no help deciding when to call this versus get_transcript or submit_review.

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