Get Report Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavior that download_url appears when the report is ready, which is useful. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like response statuses or what happens before readiness.

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 sentence that gets straight to the point. Every word adds value, with no redundant or filler content. The key behavior (download_url) is front-loaded and clearly stated.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and strong annotations. The description covers the core purpose and the most important output behavior (download_url when ready). It lacks details about the exact response structure, but for a basic status poll, it is mostly adequate. A 5 would require more specificity around possible status values or the full return format.

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 provides 100% coverage for job_id with the description 'The report job id'. The tool description simply refers to a 'report job' without adding syntax, format, or relationship details beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('status of a report job'), plus the key detail about download_url. This distinguishes it from siblings like lyzr_ops_generate_report and lyzr_report_list, which handle creation and listing rather than status.

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 a polling workflow ('once it is ready') but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lyzr_get_task_status or lyzr_report_list. No exclusion criteria or alternative tools are mentioned, so usage guidance is only implied.

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