Request Usage-By-Sub-Account Report

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

The description discloses the async nature and the return of a job_id, which is critical behavior beyond what annotations specify. Annotations already indicate non-read-only; the description adds workflow detail, though it doesn't cover permissions or report content specifics.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the primary purpose, the second gives the essential workflow. Perfectly front-loaded and concise.

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 job tool with a rich schema, the description covers the core workflow (request, get job_id, poll). It doesn't explain the report's output format or potential need for permissions, but that is not critical given the schema and sibling tool reference.

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 the parameters are well documented in the schema. The description does not add additional parameter context, which is acceptable given the baseline.

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 verb 'Request', the resource 'async usage report broken down by sub-account', and the key behavior 'Returns a job_id'. It distinguishes itself from sibling report tools by specifying the sub-account breakdown and explicitly linking to the polling tool.

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?

It clearly implies usage for sub-account usage reporting and provides the necessary follow-up action ('poll with lyzr_report_get_status'). It does not explicitly exclude other report types, but the name and context differentiate it well enough.

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