create_async_report_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is asynchronous, returns a task_id, requires progress monitoring, and produces retrievable data only after status COMPLETE. It also provides user-communication expectations. It does not mention failure modes, polling intervals, or task expiration, but the core async behavior is transparently described.

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 dense but purposeful: the first sentence states the core function, the middle provides a clear action sequence, and the end lists critical parameter constraints. The workflow instructions could be more visually structured with line breaks, but every sentence earns its place and the most important info is front-loaded.

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 async lifecycle well and gives the agent end-to-end instructions, but several required parameters remain semantically opaque (dimensions, metrics, advertiser_id) and no alternative synchronous path is mentioned. Since the output schema exists, the return value is not the main gap; parameter semantics and alternative-tool context are the missing pieces.

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 adds meaning by enumerating report_type values, data_level values, and the YYYY-MM-DD date format. However, it leaves dimensions, metrics, and advertiser_id underspecified, so the compensation is only partial for a seven-parameter schema with no property descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Creates an async report task for large datasets or long date ranges.' It clearly identifies the tool's role within an async workflow and distinguishes it from sibling tools by naming the follow-up check/download tools. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and why it exists.

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 procedural guidance: call check_async_report_tool immediately with the returned task_id, retrieve data with download_async_report_tool when status is COMPLETE, and inform the user. It also sets a clear usage context ('large datasets or long date ranges'). However, it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or compare it to get_reports_tool for synchronous reporting.

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