Get report metadata

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds a small behavioral nuance with 'bounded' and lists the metadata fields returned, but it does not go beyond that. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the action and the specific data scope without any filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 read-only metadata getter with robust annotations and detailed schema, the description is nearly complete. It lists the return fields, which is helpful since there is no output schema. The only minor gap is the ambiguous term 'bounded', which could confuse agents about what is excluded.

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 75% (three of four properties have descriptions), so the schema carries most parameter documentation. The description adds no parameter-specific details about report codes, regions, access modes, or allowUnlisted behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema is already informative.

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 resource ('report metadata') and enumerates the exact data returned: visibility, zone, timestamps, and archive status. The word 'bounded' adds a scoping hint that distinguishes it from full report retrieval, though it is somewhat vague. It is clear overall but does not explicitly compare against sibling tools.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies use when metadata is needed, but it does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or mention sibling tools like get_recent_reports or parse_wcl_url. An agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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