Reports: get bwa report

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description reinforces this with 'READ-ONLY — Fetches data. Makes no changes'. It adds valuable extra context about asynchronous generation and the replacement of a previously created report, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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 compact and front-loads the safety statement, then states the operation, async timing, replacement caveat, and endpoint. There is slight redundancy between the bolded title 'get bwa report' and the action sentence, but no unnecessary clutter.

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 getter with three schema-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral context: only fetch when generation is finished, and be aware that newer generation replaces the report. It doesn't describe the return payload shape, but no output schema exists and the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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%: all three parameters (api_key, get_files, report_id_by_customer) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so it stays at the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Returns a previously created BWA report'. This distinguishes the tool from creation siblings like reports_create_bwa, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from other report getters (e.g., reports_get_sums), leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 concrete usage context: the report must exist ('previously created') and generation is asynchronous, so it is only available after finishing. It also warns that creating a new report replaces the old one. It doesn't, however, name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus other report getters.

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