get_report_intent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description's 'does not submit or update' adds mild clarification about the intended read-only fetch semantics, but no additional behavioral context beyond 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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no wasted text. The second sentence is a useful scoping caveat rather than 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. For a simple single-parameter getter the description is nearly sufficient, with the only gap being the undocumented identifier parameter.

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 one parameter (report_intent_id) at 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and it does not. Nothing explains what the id refers to or where it comes from, leaving the parameter undocumented in both places.

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 (get) and resource (report-intent draft) with singular scope, which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_report_intents. It is clear what it does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_report.

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 clause 'This does not submit or update it' hints at usage boundaries but frames it negatively rather than saying when to use this versus list_report_intents or the submission flow. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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