check_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a status from a limited set, but does not mention whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The output schema likely provides details, but the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the status list.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is very concise, though it could be more structured (e.g., separating the purpose from the status list) for improved readability.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description is somewhat complete by listing possible statuses. However, it lacks parameter descriptions and usage guidance relative to siblings, which are important for contextual completeness.

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%, meaning the input schema does not describe any parameters. The tool description also fails to explain what 'report_id' or 'marketplace' mean or how they should be used. This is a significant gap for an AI agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 report and lists the possible statuses (IN_QUEUE, IN_PROGRESS, DONE, FATAL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'check_feed' or 'download_report', which have different purposes.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for checking report status, but does not mention when to use e.g., 'download_report' instead. Sibling tools exist but no exclusions are provided.

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