insights_check_async_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only status check but does not describe the return format, possible job states, error conditions, or any side effects. This minimal transparency leaves the agent with significant uncertainty.

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, clear sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose.

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?

The tool is simple, but the lack of output schema and absence of guidance on interpreting the status result or relating to sibling async report tools makes the description incomplete for effective agent use. The description covers only the most basic purpose.

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% and the tool description fails to explain the report_run_id parameter. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name already visible in the schema, leaving the agent to guess the expected format or 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 clearly states the tool's function: checking the status of an async insights report job, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like insights_get_async_report or insights_fetch_async_report, so it lacks sibling distinction.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of polling behavior or prerequisites, and no exclusions. It simply states what it does without any usage context.

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