report_get_export_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that this tool reports status rather than content, but it does not disclose async/polling behavior or what kinds of status values may be returned.

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 short and front-loaded with the action and resource. The phrase 'via the Power BI API' is somewhat redundant given the context, but it does not seriously harm clarity.

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 simple read-only status getter with fully documented parameters, this is minimally workable. However, with no output schema, the description does not explain what the status response looks like, what statuses to expect, or that this is intended for polling after report_export.

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 workspaceId, reportId, and exportId are already fully documented. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed given the schema's existing descriptions.

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 verb ('Get'), resource ('status of a report export operation'), and domain ('Power BI API'). It clearly distinguishes this from report_export and other report-related getters in the sibling list.

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 no guidance on when to call this tool, such as after report_export, for polling, or how it relates to report_export or other status tools. The only hint that exportId comes from report_export appears in the schema, not in the description.

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