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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses a credit check-and-debit side effect before queueing, a 20-post scope cap, free reuse of active/recent successful reports, idempotency behavior on retry, and the fact that the response is a queued status rather than a finished report. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs for a non-read-only, idempotent, open-world tool.

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?

Five dense sentences, front-loaded with the gating condition and the prerequisite call, and every sentence carries an actionable fact. It is tight but very information-dense, with no wasted clauses.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape is covered, yet the description still clarifies that the result is a queued status with progress read via get_x_report. For a 4-required-param mutation with side effects, nothing essential is missing.

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 must compensate, and it does for the two non-obvious parameters: expectedCredits is tied to get_x_report's creditsPerRefresh, and idempotencyKey is explained as reused on retry. brandId and accountId remain unexplained, though their meaning is largely inferable from the sibling tools.

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 (request) and resource (X report), and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling get_x_report by framing this as the queueing step whose results are read elsewhere. An agent can tell the write/queue action apart from the read/progress action without opening either 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?

Explicitly gates invocation: 'only when the user explicitly asks for it', and prescribes a prerequisite call ('Read get_x_report first and send its creditsPerRefresh as expectedCredits'). It also names the alternative flow (get_x_report for progress and saved results) and the reuse path for retries.

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