Download finance report

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

The annotations already state readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile of this tool is already covered. The description adds substantial behavior information: it returns parsed rows rather than an opaque file, and it says how the special region codes work, including the WW/FINANCE_DETAIL coupling. Auth needs and rate limits are unstated.

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?

It has two sentences and no wasted words: the core action is front-loaded, and the region-code detail follows in the second sentence. Every clause carries information.

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 six-parameter download tool with no output schema, the description explains what is returned (parsed rows) and which regions are valid. Two gaps remain: it doesn't say what happens when the data exceeds maxRows, and it doesn't cover what authentication the tool needs for the open-world request.

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 schema description coverage is 83%, so the schema already documents all six parameters, which sets the baseline score at 3. The description expands regionCode beyond the schema's terse examples, listing every valid region and the semantics of ZZ and WW. It adds nothing for vendorNumber, reportDate, maxRows, or saveTo.

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 definition names a specific verb and resource ('Download a monthly financial report') plus the domain concept ('proceeds by region'), which clearly separates it from asc_download_sales_report and asc_download_analytics_report. It never names those siblings outright, so the differentiation depends on the agent inferring from the word 'finance'.

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?

It gives useful context (region codes, consolidated ZZ, WW restricted to FINANCE_DETAIL) that limits how the tool can be used. However, it never states when to pick this tool over the sibling download tools, and it doesn't explain any prerequisites.

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