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

Annotations already indicate non-read, non-destructive, non-idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context by revealing that the tool queues work rather than returning the report immediately, and that the agent must poll a status endpoint via the requestId. It does not mention potential costs or rate limits, but the core async behavior is transparent.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the operation and resource, then appends the follow-up status tool. The report examples are slightly redundant with the schema enums but still aid natural-language understanding without significant bloat.

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 an asynchronous export tool with no output schema, the description covers what is queued, that a requestId is returned, and how to track it. Required parameters are fully documented in the schema, and the missing details such as error handling or cancellation are not essential for invoking the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters and their enums. The description names formats and report types, but these duplicate the schema enums without adding new semantic detail, matching the baseline expectation.

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 a specific verb ('Queue generation') and a concrete resource: accounting reports in spreadsheet, PDF, or JSON formats for a reporting period. The report type examples align with the schema enums, and the mention of requestId tracking clearly separates it from sibling status and list tools.

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 explicitly tells the agent to track the returned requestId via get_report_request_status, giving a clear follow-up path for an asynchronous operation. It does not state when not to use it versus other report/list tools, but the async-queue framing makes the intended context clear.

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