Get AML Report Status / Result

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive traits, but the description adds critical behavioral context: the asynchronous status states (pending/running/done/failed), what data appears in each terminal state, and the error reason on failure. This goes beyond annotations and fully informs the agent of the polling semantics.

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?

Three concise sentences: first identifies purpose, second details response states, third gives usage advice. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 has an output schema, annotations, and a parameter-rich sibling set. The description covers the full polling flow, return values in both terminal states, and polling cadence, making it complete for an agent to use without additional context. The linkage to start_aml_report completes the workflow picture.

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 input schema already describes report_id as 'The report_id returned by start_aml_report,' achieving 100% coverage. The description reinforces this by saying 'Pass the report_id' but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given schema completeness.

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 uses a specific verb 'Poll' and clearly identifies the resource: 'status and result of an asynchronous AML report started with start_aml_report.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_aml_score and check_aml_pep by 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?

It states the tool is for polling an async report initiated by start_aml_report and explicitly instructs to 'Poll periodically until the status is terminal (done/failed).' While it doesn't name alternative tools, the usage context is clear and paired with the start command, giving sufficient guidance without needing exclusions.

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