get_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the required auth scope (reports:read), which an agent needs before invoking. It also characterizes the return as 'full structured content,' implying a complete read with no pagination or filtering. It does not cover rate limits or error behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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?

One sentence with zero filler, front-loading the operation and the resource before the parenthetical pointer to the id source. 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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is fetched, how it is keyed, where to get the key, and the auth requirement. The only mild gap is that 'full structured content' does not hint at the shape of the returned report, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 single id parameter is fully documented in the schema (UUID, minLength 1), so the baseline is 3. The description adds the practical pointer that ids come from list_reports, which helps the agent obtain a valid value, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (a single end-of-day report) with the retrieval key (by id), and explicitly differentiates from the sibling list_reports, which handles collections rather than single records. An agent can distinguish this from list_reports without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative (list_reports) and the condition that selects it (to find ids), which is genuinely useful routing guidance. It stops short of stating when not to use this tool or any prerequisite beyond scope, so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not map.

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