Request CSV Report

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the operation is asynchronous, returns a reportId, has a strict rate limit (1 req / 30s), and requires a follow-up poll via get_reports. No contradiction with 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 four sentences, each with a distinct function: purpose, data selection, return value/next step, and rate limit. No redundant language or filler. Front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

Given it's an async initiation with six parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core facets: what is generated, what data can be included, the return token (reportId), and the polling pathway. It omits potential error conditions or date-range inclusivity, but those are secondary for a request tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all six parameters, so the description need not add much. It does summarize the boolean flags as 'orders, dividends, transactions, interest', but the schema already explains each. The date-range parameters are self-explanatory from the schema. Thus it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Initiate async generation of a CSV report for a date range.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by framing the operation as an initiation that returns a reportId, and explicitly points to get_reports for the follow-up, preventing confusion.

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 states when to use this tool: to generate a CSV report with selectable data types (orders, dividends, transactions, interest). It also directs the agent to use get_reports for polling and download, which is a clear alternative/handoff. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, but the context and sibling reference provide sufficient guidance.

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