direct_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and discloses important behavior: it waits for report readiness, handles 201/202 retry codes, and returns TSV. It stops short of describing authentication, error conditions, or whether report generation has side effects or costs, but the main operational surprise is well covered.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the service and key behavior. It avoids repeating schema details and contains no filler, making it appropriately sized and easy to scan.

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?

Given the rich schema coverage and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the non-obvious long-running behavior and the output format. It is mostly complete for invocation purposes, with minor gaps around error handling and explicit sibling-tool relationships.

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 parameters, including the nested ReportDefinition fields and defaults. The description adds only the high-level 'ReportDefinition' concept and TSV return format, which the schema already covers, so it contributes little beyond the structured definitions.

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 states the resource ('Reports API v5') and clarifies the operation: it accepts a ReportDefinition, waits for report readiness, and returns TSV. It is clear enough to identify the tool as a report/statistics retrieval tool, though it lacks an explicit action verb and does not directly contrast with sibling tools.

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 opening phrase 'Статистика через сервис Reports API v5' provides clear context for when to use the tool: to obtain statistics via Reports API v5. It states the self-waiting behavior, distinguishing it from a manual status-checking tool, but it does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions.

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