check_async_report_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the expected statuses (PROCESSING, COMPLETE, FAILED) and the non-obvious callback behavior to download_async_report_tool. It does not specify how to handle FAILED or any rate-limit/retry behavior, which is a minor gap but not a contradiction.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses bolded directives for the conditional actions. Every sentence adds operational value and none are wasted.

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?

The description covers the main polling workflow and handoff to the download tool, and an output schema exists for return-value details. The only notable omission is guidance for the FAILED status, but the overall context is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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. It only clarifies that task_id should be the same as the one from creation; advertiser_id is never mentioned or explained. The agent would have to infer the meaning and required relationship of advertiser_id from context.

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 action ('Checks the status of an async report task') and names the producing tool ('created by create_async_report_tool'). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like create_async_report_tool and download_async_report_tool.

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 description gives explicit conditional guidance: if PROCESSING, inform the user and check again; if COMPLETE, call download_async_report_tool with the same task_id. This clearly routes the agent between polling and handoff behavior, leaving little to inference.

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