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

The description adds valuable context by explaining the stateful nature of the report creation process (Create then Poll then Download). This adds behavioral insight beyond the `readOnlyHint: true` annotation, though it does not disclose operational constraints like rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 highly concise, capturing the complex three-stage operational workflow (create, poll, download) in a single, dense sentence without unnecessary filler.

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?

While the schema is comprehensive, the description is highly effective at communicating the core API pattern—the 'get_report' contract. This workflow knowledge is essential for using this specific reporting endpoint, which is a major piece of the tool's complexity.

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?

With a 100% schema description coverage, the baseline score of 3 applies. The description only references specific parameters (`reportId`, `documentToken`) that are already clearly defined and detailed within the input schema structure and examples.

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 tool's name and title are clear, and the description correctly identifies the reporting function. However, it is vague regarding the specific Amazon Ads metrics or scopes covered (e.g., campaign vs. ad group performance) which is necessary for precise selection among related reporting siblings.

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 explicit workflow guidance by explaining how to use `reportId` for polling and `documentToken` for downloading. This helps the agent understand the three distinct operational phases (Create, Poll, Download).

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