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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false). The description adds genuine context beyond that: the link is 'single-use' and 'fresh', telling the agent each call mints a new link rather than returning a cached one, consistent with idempotentHint=false. It omits link expiry and whether previous links are invalidated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the key behavioral traits (fresh, single-use) come before the scoping clause.

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 should say something about what comes back (the URL itself, expiry window, what happens to prior links). It covers the what but not the result, which is a meaningful gap for a link-issuing 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 coverage is 100%, so both order_id and passport_token are already fully documented, including the auth-header fallback. The description only echoes the order provenance ('a kit you bought') and adds no format or usage detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Issue'), a specific artifact ('download link'), and the scoping condition ('for a kit you bought'). It is clearly distinguishable from catalog or order-management siblings, though it never names an alternative tool.

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?

'For a kit you bought' only loosely implies the post-purchase context; there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance on re-issuing after expiry, and no pointer to get_order for obtaining the required order_id.

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