List Generated Reports

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining the status values (Queued, Processing, Running, Finished, Failed, Canceled) and the downloadLink field, which is essential behavior. It also discloses the rate limit. This adds value beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint already provided by annotations.

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, front-loaded with the key action and status expectations. It packs status values, download behavior, and rate limit efficiently with no wasted words.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains what the response contains (status and downloadLink) and the rate limit. This is sufficient for a zero-parameter list tool. No additional context seems necessary.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain any. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description mentions the scope ('all requested CSV reports'), providing context that would otherwise be unclear, even though there are no interactive inputs.

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 tool retrieves a list of requested CSV reports with their status, which is a specific verb (Retrieve), resource (CSV reports), and scope (list). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like request_csv_report, which creates reports, and get_historical_orders, which deals with orders, not 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: to check the status of requested reports and access download links. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the sibling context and clarity of purpose imply the right usage. The rate limit is also a practical usage note.

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