Check DSP report status

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

Annotations readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already indicate a safe read operation. The description adds that the response includes a signed download URL, which is useful. However, it does not disclose polling behavior, rate limits, or other side effects beyond what annotations convey.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.

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 covers the main action and the key output (signed URL). However, it does not describe the full response structure (e.g., status codes, timestamps) or usage pattern (e.g., polling). Given no output schema, additional detail would help.

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?

The description does not mention any of the three parameters. With only 33% schema coverage (only profileId documented), the description fails to compensate for the undocumented accountId and reportId parameters. Agents lack context to understand what values to provide.

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 the status of a DSP report and mentions the signed download URL upon completion. The title 'Check DSP report status' and verb 'Check' align well. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_report and download_report.

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 implies you would use this after creating a report to check if it's ready, but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like get_report_status or detail prerequisites. Usage guidance is present but not fully explicit.

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