get_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read/download operation, implies a prerequisite (prior report request), and mentions checking status, which covers the key behaviors. However, it doesn't state explicitly that it is read-only or describe potential outputs, but the core safety and workflow behavior are clear.

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?

Two short sentences: the first states the action, the second gives the trigger condition. No filler, fully front-loaded, and every word contributes.

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?

For a small tool with two well-covered parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently completes the context: it tells the agent what to docj and when. Missing details like output format or error handling are not critical given the tool's simplicity, but a brief note on return payload would be slightly better.

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 coverage is 100% with decent descriptions, but the tool description adds crucial context: it links reportId to the output of get_campaign_performance)Skip. This gives the agent more semantic grounding than the raw schema alone, especially for the reportId parameter.

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's dual purpose: checking status and downloading a previously requested report. It explicitly references the prerequisite from a sibling tool (get_campaign_performance returning PENDING), which distinguishes it from the creation tool and clarifies its role in the workflow.

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 explicitly says 'after get_campaign_performance returns PENDING status', giving a clear condition for when to use this tool. This provides direct usage context without ambiguity, and no alternatives are needed since this is the designated follow-up.

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