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, and it does: it enumerates response fields and even notes a version-dependent behavior (extra_metadata only on reports after 2026-04-24, older fall back). It doesn't describe auth, rate limits, or error cases, but for a read-only get-by-ID, the key behavior is transparent.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then uses a clean bulleted list for the response fields. Every line adds specific detail; no filler or repetition. Efficient and well-structured.

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 tool is simple (single parameter, read-only), and the description covers the main return structure and a notable behavioral nuance. Since an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to fully document every field, but it provides a strong overview and the temporal caveat. Missing only minor edge-case info that would be over-specification for such a tool.

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 only parameter, report_id, is described as a 'UUID' in the first line, adding meaning beyond the bare string type in the schema. Given schema description coverage is 0%, this is valuable, though it doesn't elaborate on how to obtain the UUID or constraints.

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 opens with 'Full report detail by UUID', which clearly identifies the tool as a retrieval-by-ID operation for reports. It lists specific fields (body_markdown, sections, siblings, shares) and distinguishes it from siblings like list_reports (listing) and translate_report (translation).

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 phrase 'Full report detail' gives clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives (e.g., get_report_pdf_url for PDFs or list_reports to find UUIDs), so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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