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

Annotations mark this as a non-read-only, open-world, idempotent operation; the description adds what the annotations cannot: workspace credits are checked and debited before queueing, up to 20 recent posts are queued, active/recent reports are reused for free, and the return is a queued status rather than a finished report. It also supplies the retry contract via idempotencyKey. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=false or idempotentHint=true.

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?

Six short sentences, front-loaded with the usage restriction and prerequisite; every sentence adds operational information (credit debit, queue scope, free reuse, retry key, return status). No filler or repetition.

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 mutating, credit-debiting, asynchronous queue tool, the description supplies the trigger, prerequisite, side effects, idempotency handling, and where to get results. Since an output schema exists, it need not enumerate return fields, and the annotations already cover safety/hints.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains expectedCredits (must come from get_x_report's creditsPerRefresh) and idempotencyKey (reuse on retry), but leaves brandId and accountId without semantic explanation beyond their names and schema patterns. That partial compensation fits a 3.

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 the action (request an X report) and the resource (X report), and immediately distinguishes it from get_x_report by noting the queued-status return and where progress/results live. An agent can tell it apart from sibling report tools without opening the schema.

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?

First sentence gives the trigger ('only when the user explicitly asks for it'), and the second makes reading get_x_report a prerequisite for expectedCredits. It also directs progress/results to get_x_report and explains reuse of idempotencyKey on retry, so the when/how path is explicit.

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