download_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the important trait that this is an async export returning a job_id rather than the report content, but says nothing about permissions, whether the export is durable, or how/when to poll for completion.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action; nothing is bloated. Slight redundancy in stating the return value as its own sentence, but it is high-value information given no output schema.

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?

Because there is no output schema, naming job_id is appropriately included, and the nested date_range format is covered. Still missing the source of report_type values, any async/polling workflow, and any safety or auth context, which matters for an unannotated tool.

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 0% and date_range is an unconstrained object, so the description's explicit {'from': 'YYYY-MM-DD', 'to': 'YYYY-MM-DD'} format is genuinely additive. However, report_type is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the agent with no hint about valid values.

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+resource ('Start exporting a report') and, via 'Returns a job_id', signals it is an async kickoff rather than a synchronous file fetch. It does not name or contrast with the siblings, so an agent must infer that get_report_job_status is the follow-up.

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 when/when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling tools. The agent is left to infer that report_type comes from list_available_reports and that job_id is polled via get_report_job_status, neither of which is stated.

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