get_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little beyond 'detailed information' and provides no additional behavioral context such as scope, response nature, or authorization. It is consistent with annotations, but does not meaningfully enrich them.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the core purpose immediately and avoids repeating the tool name or schema details.

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 simple single-parameter read-only getter, the description is minimally adequate: it names the operation, scope, and safety profile via annotations. However, it doesn't clarify what 'detailed information' includes or how this differs from related report tools like get_report_execution, get_scheduled_reports, or run_report, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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% and the single report_id parameter is described in the schema. The description's 'specific report' loosely aligns with the parameter but adds no syntax, format, or semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the operation ('Get') and resource ('a specific report'), and the singular phrasing distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like get_reports and get_report_groups. It does not explicitly contrast those siblings, but the 'specific' qualifier conveys the per-ID granularity well enough.

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 when the agent needs details about one known report, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It doesn't mention that get_reports should be used for listing or that report execution details belong to get_report_execution, so the routing burden falls on the agent.

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