Run and download an Amazon SP-API report

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly=false and openWorld=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the tool creates a report, polls until completion, downloads and decompresses it, and returns an artifact reference. It does not cover failure/retry behavior or rate limits, but the core side-effectful flow is disclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence conveys the entire workflow without filler. It is compact and every clause contributes essential information about the operation's lifecycle.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no enums, the description needs to cover parameter selection and return expectations more thoroughly. It mentions 'artifact reference' but does not explain reportType options, data-window semantics, confirmation requirements, or how to interpret the output.

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 only 11%, but the description adds no parameter meaning beyond mentioning 'stable account name.' reportType, confirm, time windows, reportOptions, marketplaceIds, timeout, and pollInterval are left entirely unexplained by both the schema and the description.

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?

Description uses a specific verb sequence (create, poll, download, decompress, return) tied to Amazon SP-API reports, and the title reinforces the resource. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_artifact or invoke_operation by describing the complete report workflow rather than a generic call.

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 given about when to choose run_report over alternatives such as invoke_operation or get_artifact. The description only implies a report-download use case and does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or fallback scenarios.

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