snap_report_async_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description's '(read-only)' largely restates that. The genuinely additive information is the enumeration of the three possible status values, which tells the agent what the response looks like. It does not disclose anything about report_run_id lifetime, error/failure states, or how long results remain retrievable.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource and the returned states front-loaded; nothing is wasted. No restructuring would make it more scannable.

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?

With no output schema and 0% schema description coverage across three required parameters, the description is too thin for a tool whose identifier-to-entity relationship an agent must get right. It should clarify how entity/id scope the run and what happens if the run is unknown or expired.

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% for three required parameters (entity, id, report_run_id), so the description carries full responsibility and adds essentially nothing. It doesn't explain that 'entity' is an enum of adaccount/campaign/adsquad/ad, nor the relationship between entity/id and report_run_id. Only the word 'report' loosely hints at report_run_id.

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+resource ('Status of an async report') and enumerates the possible states (STARTED, RUNNING, COMPLETED), so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling async start/download tools by being the status lookup, but it never names them.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement or reference to alternatives such as snap_report_async_start or snap_report_async_download. The agent must infer that this is the polling step after starting a report, and it gets no guidance on polling cadence or what to do once the state is COMPLETED.

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