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

Annotations already declare the safe-mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds genuinely new behavior: this is asynchronous, it only queues a hosted job, and the result must be fetched with get_job rather than returned inline — a fact not derivable from the annotations or 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 short sentences, zero filler, with the async-job follow-up placed immediately after the purpose so the agent learns the critical workflow detail up front.

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 9-parameter, 6-required job-submission tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description is minimal. It correctly frames the async pattern but leaves most parameters and the distinction from refresh_report_pack unexplained.

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 only 22% (just requestId and workspaceToken), leaving projectId, expectedRevision, idempotencyKey, waveId, tableIds and templateId undocumented anywhere. The description mentions only the format choices ('PPTX or DOCX'), which the enum already conveys, so it does not compensate for the gap.

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 and resource plus the output artifact types ('editable evidence-linked PPTX or DOCX pack'), which is concrete and distinguishable from generic report tools. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the close sibling refresh_report_pack, so an agent must guess which of the two to use when a pack already exists.

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 gives a workflow cue — 'Queues a hosted job; use get_job to retrieve its result' — which tells the agent what to do after calling. It offers no guidance on when to prefer this over refresh_report_pack, no prerequisites, and no note that the required workspaceToken/idempotencyKey must be obtained elsewhere.

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