get_report_definition

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it clarifies the response contains settings not calculated rows and that the key cannot be discovered through this tool — operational context annotations don't convey.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the read-only scope, then the parameter hints, then the constraint. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation. The description covers purpose, the non-obvious key-availability constraint, parameter formats, and the absence of write behavior — everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and largely does: report_type is illustrated with 'aged-receivables' and 'trial-balance' and the '-form' suffix exclusion, and key is identified as the definition GUID. It stops short of full syntax detail but compensates well for a 0% 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 and resource (GET of a stored report definition) plus a sharp scope boundary: settings only, never calculated rows. This cleanly separates it from siblings like aged_receivables or trial_balance that return computed data.

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?

Explains the operative precondition — there is no list endpoint, so the key must already be known — and gives a report_type format hint. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative to use instead, which keeps it short of a 5.

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