Reports: create bwa report

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

Beyond annotations that already indicate a non-idempotent write, the description adds material behavioral detail: the report is generated asynchronousy, the response contains id_by_customer, and concurrent requests of the same type are restricted. This is exactly the kind of context agents need beyond 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 main body is relatively compact and includes endpoint, async behavior, and response info. However, the leading ' WRITE · creates data — Creates new records...' boilerplate is redundant with the title and annotations, and the bold 'create bwa report' heading repeats the tool name.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description conveys the response contract (id_by_customer), the asynchronous nature, and the single-flight constraint. It only stops short of explicitly naming reports_get_bwa as the follow-up retrieval tool, though that sibling is present in the list.

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 input schema fully documents date_from, date_to, and api_key including formats and defaults. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action and resource: it 'Triggers the creation of a BWA report' and provides the endpoint. It is distinguishable from siblings like reports_create_sums by name and content, though the opening boilerplate about 'receipts, transactions, postings...' is generic and not specific to BWA reports.

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 provides one important usage constraint: a new report may only be requested after a previous report of the same type has finished generating. However, it does not explicitly tell an agent when to choose this tool over reports_create_sums or when to pair it with reports_get_bwa, leaving some usage routing to inference.

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