get_report

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

Despite annotations already declaring readOnly and idempotent hints, the description adds non-obvious behavioral context: download URLs are always constructed, so a URL may exist even when the report is PENDING and must not be fetched until status is checked. This is exactly the kind of caveat that prevents misuse.

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 well-structured: a bracketed read indicator, a one-sentence summary, a compact list of return fields, an important caveat, and an Args block. Every sentence earns its place, and the critical caveat is prominently placed before the parameters.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description still covers the return fields, the polling workflow, the URL caveat, and parameter origins. An agent has everything needed to select and correctly invoke this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining report_id as the UUID from generate_report or list_reports, and target as an Aria target name from config with a default. This adds meaning far beyond the raw schema property names.

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 '[READ] Get status and download URLs for a generated report,' which clearly identifies a specific verb and resource. It also differentiates the tool from siblings like generate_report and list_reports by emphasizing its role as a status/URL retriever for an already-generated report.

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 instructs 'Use this to poll after generate_report,' giving clear context for when to invoke this tool. However, it does not contrast with list_reports or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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