Get customer report status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful qualifier 'private', hinting at authorization scoping, but leaves opaque what 'support-link state' means and how missing/expired reports behave. That is modest added value over the annotations.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the two things it returns, with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should carry the return contract; it names 'delivery status' and 'support-link state' but does not describe the shape or fields of either, nor error behavior for unknown report IDs. For a one-parameter read tool this is the minimum viable level.

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 has one report_id with a UUID pattern but 0% description coverage; the description only implies that the ID selects 'one ReceiptCal customer report'. With a single self-evident required parameter this is adequate, not enriching.

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 ('Read') and a specific resource ('delivery status and support-link state of one ReceiptCal customer report'). It is clearly distinguishable from the create/retry customer-report siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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 guidance on when to use this versus prepare_retry_customer_report or prepare_create_customer_report_draft, and no noted exclusions or preconditions. Usage is only implied by the words 'read ... status'.

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