amazon ads get report

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive); the description adds beyond them: a single non-blocking check, bounded download size, partial results marked with row offsets, and expiry-driven re-request. It does not describe how incompleteness is signaled (status field vs. error), which is the one remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then constraints, pagination, and expiry — no wasted text. Slight terseness ('Downloads are bounded') leaves a little to interpret, but nothing is redundant.

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?

With an output schema available and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the operational facts an agent needs: token provenance, polling-once semantics, pagination offsets, partial results, and expiry. Only the precise incomplete/expired signaling contract is left implicit.

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 100%, so limit, offset, jobToken, and accountId are already fully documented in the schema. The description only reinforces that pagination is offset-based via returned row offsets and that the token is profile-scoped, which adds marginal value over the schema baseline.

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 two-part action (poll once for completion, then read native rows) on a specific resource (Amazon report), and explicitly names the sibling that produces the input token, amazon_ads_create_report. An agent can tell this apart from the create/poll siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit prerequisites (jobToken must come from amazon_ads_create_report for this profile) and a recovery path (expired reports must be requested again). It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement against other report-ish siblings, but the context needed to call it correctly is present.

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