async_reports_get

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

No annotations are provided, and the description adds no behavioral context. There is no mention of error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the task does not exist. This is a significant gap for a tool querying status.

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 very concise at one line, which is good for brevity. However, it lacks structure such as sections or bullet points. The information provided is minimal but not verbose.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, pagination behavior, or filtering format, making it insufficient for an agent to use correctly without additional context.

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 25% (only account_id has a description). The tool description does not elaborate on any parameters, leaving the agent to guess the meaning of page, filtering, and page_size. This is insufficient for proper invocation.

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 'query async report task status' in both Chinese and English. It identifies the specific verb (get) and resource (async report status), distinguishing it from siblings like async_reports_add and async_report_files_get. However, it could be more precise about what status information is returned.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is implied that it should be called after creating an async report, but there is no explicit context, exclusions, or mention of prerequisites like task ID requirements.

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