Read a growth report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: 'Free', the content type ('origin story, dated evidence and SEO footprint'), and the locked-field behavior with a pointer to unlock_report. It does not contradict annotations and enriches them, though it doesn't discuss failure modes or rate limits.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and key details (source, cost, content, alternative). No redundancy, every sentence contributes value.

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 1-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, source of the identifier, report contents, cost, and an alternative for locked fields. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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% (slug described as 'Report slug'). The description adds meaning by explaining the slug's provenance ('from search_reports or a finished trace'), which helps the agent locate the correct value. This goes beyond the bare schema description.

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 'Read one growth report by slug' – specific verb (read) + resource (growth report) + identifier (slug). It also distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the slug comes from search_reports or a finished trace, and contrasts with unlock_report (for locked fields).

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?

Explicitly tells when to use: read one report by slug; advises to cite it instead of guessing how a product grew. It also points to an alternative: 'If timeline fields show as locked, unlock_report can open them (that one costs credits).' This provides clear context and exclusions.

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