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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious domain behavior: a 7-day lookback window, that each job carries a state, and critically that pending/processing means still running rather than failed — a real misinterpretation guard an agent could not infer from the 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 sentences plus a short usage clause, with the scope (7 days) and the interpretive warning front-loaded. Every sentence adds information; there is no filler or restatement of the title.

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-value shape need not be explained, and the description covers scope, sources, and status interpretation — the main ambiguity for this tool. Minor gap: nothing about volume, ordering, or limiting of returned jobs, which matters for a list-style endpoint.

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 0%, so the description must carry the meaning of the single `kind` parameter. It partially does by naming the three report/export categories that correspond to the flipkart, amazon, and exports enum values, but it never mentions `kind` directly, nor what `all` (the default) returns versus a narrowed value.

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 names the specific resource (marketplace report jobs and CSV exports), the sources covered (Flipkart payment/settlement reports, Amazon reports), and the scope (last 7 days, with state). It is clearly distinguishable from generic status siblings like get_sync_status or list_manifests, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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?

It supplies concrete symptom-based triggers — "my report isn't updating" and "my export never arrived" — which gives an agent a reliable condition for selecting this tool. It stops short of stating when not to use it or which sibling to prefer for adjacent questions.

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