Download report

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

The 'Read-only' prefix aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation, and 'request ... download' hints at an async request-style behavior, which adds modest context. However, it does not disclose what the request returns, whether a file/link is produced asynchronously, or any auth or rate-limit considerations beyond the annotation.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the read-only qualifier is placed first. It is concise, though the brevity comes at the cost of leaving out needed parameter and return-behavior context.

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 four undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin: it does not clarify date formats, reportType values, whether parameters are conditionally required, or what the response to the download request looks like. It communicates basic intent but not enough to invoke correctly in varied situations.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for explaining the four parameters. It only constrains reportType indirectly via 'transaction or settlement report' and says nothing about format, startDate, or endDate semantics, leaving the agent to rely on parameter names and loose inference.

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 a specific action ('request a report download') and a specific resource ('transaction or settlement report') from ZEN. The report domain separates it from sibling tools like get_transaction, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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 implies the tool should be used when a transaction or settlement report download is needed, but it gives no explicit guidance on when it should be preferred over siblings or what conditions make it inappropriate. There are no when-not-to-use statements or alternative tool references.

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