Request Usage-By-Agent Report

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds valuable context that the operation is asynchronous and returns a job_id that requires polling. This tells the agent that invoking this tool will create a background job rather than returning immediate results, which is behavioral information beyond the annotation flags.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant or irrelevant information. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 an async request tool with a comprehensive schema and annotations, the description covers the essential workflow: making the request, receiving a job_id, and polling for status. It does not explain the contents of the report, but that is not necessary given the schema and the existence of lyzr_report_get_status.

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% for all 8 parameters, including details about timeframes, date formats, and grouping options. The description text itself contributes no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Request'), object ('an async usage report'), and grouping ('broken down by agent'), distinguishing it from sibling usage report tools by its agent-level focus. It also clearly communicates the async nature and the next step (polling), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable.

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 explicitly states the async workflow: request, get job_id, poll with lyzr_report_get_status. This provides clear context for how to use the tool. However, it does not directly mention alternatives (e.g., usage_by_model, usage_by_sub_account) or exclusion criteria, though the tool name and phrase 'by agent' imply when it should be used.

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