get_abuse_report

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get details' merely restates the operation and adds no information about return shape, error behavior, authentication needs, or whether the report content is scoped to the account. It does not contradict anything, but it does not meaningfully illuminate behavior beyond the tool name.

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 a single sentence with no filler, which makes it easy to parse. It is slightly under-specified, but there is no waste; it could have added useful context without losing conciseness.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the returned 'details' contain and any notable behaviors. It does neither. The two required parameters are documented in the schema, but an agent cannot predict the response shape or know whether the operation has restrictions, making the description inadequate for full context.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without parameter information in the description. The schema already documents account_id and report_id with basic descriptions, and the tool description adds no additional meaning about how these identifiers relate or what constraints apply.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('abuse report'), and the singular phrasing indicates this returns one report's details rather than a list. It is implicitly distinguished from the sibling list_abuse_reports, but it does not explicitly mention that report_id is the identifier or clarify what 'details' includes.

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 implies usage: call this when you need details about a specific abuse report, and list_abuse_reports would be used to enumerate reports. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over the sibling listing tool, nor any preconditions such as needing an already-known report_id.

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