action1_get_report_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two important behavioral traits: the data is 'last computed' (cached) and the tool 'does not trigger a requery.' This is exactly the kind of behavioral nuance an agent needs to avoid incorrect assumptions about freshness. It doesn't mention pagination or auth, but the core caveat is covered.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with a clear purpose statement followed by a critical caveat. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 params, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It states what the tool does, what it returns, and the key behavioral limitation. The schema covers parameters and the output schema covers return structure, so nothing essential 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter fully described (e.g., report_id from action1_list_reports, filters passed verbatim). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Read the rows of one report.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like action1_list_reports, which list reports rather than reading their data. The scope is explicit ('one report') with no ambiguity.

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 description provides clear context: it returns Action1's last computed data and does not trigger a requery, so figures can lag the console. This implicitly tells the agent when to use it (when cached data is acceptable) and when not to (when fresh data is required). It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the caveat is actionable.

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