Get a saved matching report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the cost model ("Free on both tiers") and the scope of what is returned, which matters because there is no output schema.

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 compact sentences with the action and payload scope front-loaded; nothing is buried. The trailing pricing sentence is slightly tangential but is short and still actionable for a cost-aware agent.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers what comes back. The main gap is routing versus sibling report_* tools, which is a usage-guideline concern rather than a completeness failure.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single id parameter, including its UUID pattern and provenance ("Saved UUID from report_list or three_way_match"). The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (saved report) and enumerates the payload contents: source documents, per-SKU evidence and all exceptions. That is enough for an agent to distinguish it from report_list or report_delete, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the closer siblings report_page and report_export_csv.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance: no conditions selecting it over report_list, report_page, or report_export_csv, and no note that the id must first come from report_list or three_way_match (that hint lives only in the schema). "Free on both tiers" is a cost note, not routing guidance.

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