get_async_report

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action ('check status and retrieve results') without explaining whether the call blocks, what statuses exist, how to interpret not-ready states, or error behavior. This is a significant gap for an async tool.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the main purpose. No wasted words; it earns its place perfectly.

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 an async report getter with no output schema and no annotations. The description omits crucial details about the async polling flow, such as whether it returns partial data, how to interpret status fields, or what happens if the report is not ready. For a 2-parameter tool, it is under-specified.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, but the schema itself is clear (report_run_id from create_async_report, fields as comma-separated).

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 checks status and retrieves results of an async insight report, using specific verb+resource language. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_async_report and get_account_insights by explicitly focusing on the async report lifecycle.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used to poll after creating an async report, nor does it discuss any preconditions or fallback options.

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