analytics_report_instance_wait

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: it polls, it stops on COMPLETED/FAILED or timeout, and it returns the final payload. However, it omits what happens on timeout (error vs last payload), any default/limit values for the timeout and interval, and any rate-limit or auth expectations for a polling loop.

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 sentences with zero filler; the action and termination condition are front-loaded and the return-value sentence adds information rather than restating the name.

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 three-parameter async-polling tool with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description covers the core semantics but leaves key operational gaps: timeout-outcome behavior, polling interval meaning, and defaults. Adequate but incomplete.

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%, so the description must compensate and it only partly does: 'a timeout expires' maps loosely to timeoutMs, but pollIntervalMs is never explained, the id format/type is not clarified, and no defaults or units are given for the timing parameters.

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?

States a specific verb ('Poll') and resource ('analytics report instance') plus the terminal conditions (COMPLETED or FAILED) that define success. This implicitly separates it from the single-shot sibling analytics_report_instances_get_instance, but it never names that sibling or any alternative, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

The polling-until-terminal wording implies the use case (waiting on an async report job), but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. a report instance must already exist), and no statement of when a plain get_instance fetch is preferable.

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