Run Report Export (async)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It transparently explains the async polling behavior and the two expected outcomes (result rows or job URI). However, it does not mention potential errors, rate limits, or whether the operation has side effects like creating a persisted job, leaving some behavioral aspects opaque.

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 consists of three short sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: describing the operation, the use case, and the return behavior. There is no redundant or filler content, making it highly concise and well structured.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential workflow: starting an async export, polling, and the possible return values. It lacks details on error handling or what happens if the job fails, but given the moderate complexity and the schema covering parameters, it is fairly complete.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for all 3 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra semantics, only indirectly clarifying the timeout parameter by mentioning polling and timeout behavior. It does not add details about the 'params' object or 'reportId' beyond the schema.

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 starts an asynchronous report export with specific formats (CSV/JSON) and polls for readiness. It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes itself from the synchronous sibling 'run_report' by indicating it is for large reports.

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 a clear usage context with 'Use for large reports,' implying that the synchronous alternative is more appropriate for small reports. It does not explicitly name the alternative tool, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use this tool.

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