get_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real value on top: it enumerates the payload shape, flags the conditional presence of vulnerability_information when the hacker owns the report, and draws a clear boundary that attachment bytes are not downloaded (only expiring metadata URLs).

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, then two supporting sentences. The long field enumeration (reporter, program, weakness, severity, bounties, swag, activities...) partially duplicates the existing output schema, which is the only mild inefficiency.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be fully restated, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description still covers the meaningful behavioral nuances — conditional vulnerability_information and the no-attachment-download boundary — leaving only minor gaps like error behavior for unauthorized report ids.

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?

There is a single required parameter (report_id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and largely does not — it never states what a report id is, where to obtain it, or whether it must belong to the caller's account beyond the vague 'the account can view' scope.

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 with scope: 'Get one report the account can view.' The singular 'one report' implicitly distinguishes it from list-style siblings like list_my_reports, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent infers this is the detail-fetch tool for a single report versus the list and intent tools. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing (e.g., get_report_intent) stated.

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