get_report

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description's behavioral disclosure is not burdened. The description adds considerable context about returned fields (name, type, schedule, recipients, format, data sources, etc.) and configuration details, going beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Returns, When to use, Configuration details, Workflow, Related tools) and is front-loaded with purpose. Some redundancy exists between 'Returns' and 'Configuration details', but overall it's efficient and scannable.

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 no output schema, the description provides detailed return values and configuration details, compensating fully. The workflow and usage scenarios make the tool context-complete for a simple read operation with two parameters.

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% (both parameters documented in schema). The description does not add new parameter-level details beyond the schema, but the workflow context indirectly references the reportId. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 explicitly states 'Get detailed information about a specific report by its ID' and uses a specific verb (get) and resource (report). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning related tools and workflow, making the purpose clear and unique.

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 'When to use' section lists concrete scenarios (review configuration, check recipients, verify data sources, troubleshoot, clone settings) and the workflow explicitly suggests using 'list_reports' first. The 'Related tools' section provides alternatives, offering clear guidance on when to use this tool versus others.

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