generate_report

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

Annotations already signal readOnly=false, idempotent=false, and destructive=false. The description adds crucial context beyond those flags: the tool returns immediately with a report_id and PENDING status, does not wait for the file, and requires polling. This is exactly the behavioral nuance an agent needs and cannot infer from annotations alone.

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 compact, well-structured sentences. The first states purpose, and the second explains the async workflow and follow-up action. No filler or redundant repetition of the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (report_id, PENDING status) and how to complete the workflow (poll get_report until COMPLETED, then use download_url). For an async trigger tool with rich schema descriptions, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The main description adds no parameter-level detail; however, the schema itself provides rich guidance (resource_ids first-ID semantics, list_resources, definition_id via list_report_definitions). Note a minor schema inconsistency: resource_ids is declared optional but its description says 'REQUIRED', which could confuse agents, but this is not a failure of the main description.

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 operation ('Trigger generation'), the resource ('a report from a report definition template'), and the asynchronous behavior. The [WRITE] tag and the focus on generation distinguish it from read-oriented siblings like get_report and list_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 explicitly tells the agent how to use the tool and what to do next: poll get_report(report_id) until status == COMPLETED, then use download_url. It implies the division of labor between generation and retrieval, though it does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives.

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