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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint: false). The description adds useful behavioral context: it creates an asynchronous report, returns an id for polling, and provides a download URL upon completion. It also discloses that omitting template_id results in an empty report shell. These details go beyond what annotations provide, though rate limits or auth requirements are not mentioned.

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 concise: two sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the action and scope, while the second explains the return value and async workflow. Every word adds value, making it well-structured and easily scannable.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 params, output schema present, multiple sibling tools), the description covers the essential return behavior and polling workflow. It does not explain the output schema structure, but that is already available in the output schema itself. Missing auth or org-specific context, but the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema already contains descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), including the default for output_format and the behavior of template_id. The description does not add extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema 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 tool's function: 'Create a new generated report in your clariBI organization.' It uses a specific verb ('Create') with a resource ('generated report') and differentiates from siblings like list_reports and get_report by focusing on creation. It also mentions the returned report id and download URL, which reinforces its purpose.

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 provides clear context by explaining the workflow: poll via get_report and wait for status 'completed' to get the download URL. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_forecast) or state when not to use it. This is a minor gap, but the workflow guidance is helpful.

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