insights_get_async_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the async nature, that the tool returns a report run ID rather than the data, and that subsequent polling/fetching is required. This is key context for an agent. It doesn't mention error handling or timeouts, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action and purpose, and follows with a concise workflow. Every word earns its place; there is no repetition of schema or annotations. It is an exemplar of efficient description writing.

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 description explains the async workflow and return value, but the tool has 6 parameters with no semantic explanations and no output schema. The description does not compensate for the parameter ambiguity, leaving the agent under-informed about what values to provide for fields like breakdowns or date_preset. For a complex tool, this is insufficient.

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%; the description does not mention any of the 6 parameters. While the schema provides names and types, it lacks semantic meaning. The description also doesn't clarify what fields like 'level', 'breakdowns', 'time_range', or 'date_preset' represent, so the agent must infer their purpose from names alone.

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 purpose: 'Submit an async insights job for large reports.' It specifies the verb (submit), resource (insights job), and distinctiveness (async, large reports), and indicates the return value (report run ID). This distinguishes it from synchronous insights_get and the related async check/fetch 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?

The description provides an explicit workflow: use insights_check_async_report(report_run_id) to check status, then insights_fetch_async_report(report_run_id) to get data. It also states the tool is for 'large reports,' implying when to use it over synchronous alternatives. It doesn't explicitly name the alternative for small reports, but the context is clear.

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