Run fund cash flow report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful trait not in the structured fields: the report is asynchronous, and it points at a sibling with the same async pattern. It stops short of explaining the pending reportId to get_report polling flow implicit in waitSeconds, or any permission/rate-limit context.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It is terse rather than padded, though the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than from efficient information density.

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 11-parameter asynchronous report generator with no output schema and only 64% parameter description coverage, this is insufficient. Missing: how the async reportId connects to get_report, what happens on timeout, date-filter semantics (searchByTradeDate switching), and meaning of the include* flags.

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 only 64%, and the description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever. Several parameters carry no schema description at all (fromOrderDateTime, toOrderDateTime, includeInvestorDetails, includeVerificationDetails), and the description does nothing to compensate for those gaps.

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 identifies the subject matter (fund applications and redemptions with pending and completed totals), which is more specific than the name alone. However it is a noun phrase with no verb and never states that it generates an asynchronous fund cash flow report, nor does it differentiate it from run_transaction_listing_report, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all. The only comparative reference to a sibling, run_register_listing_report, is about async behavior, not about choosing between tools, so an agent gets no help deciding between this and run_transaction_listing_report or run_register_listing_report.

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