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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description usefully adds the 24-hour link expiry and the format-availability constraint. It does not disclose whether repeated calls mint new links, whether prior links are invalidated, or whether the call consumes capacity/quota — meaningful gaps for a non-read-only tool.

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 tight sentences with the core action and format options front-loaded and the lifetime constraint trailing. Every clause carries information; nothing is repetitive or filler.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what is produced (a link), its lifetime, and format constraints, which is close to complete. The remaining gap is what the caller receives on expiry or re-export and what find_id precisely refers to, but overall an agent could call this 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 reported at 0%, so the description must carry the parameter semantics. It does explain the format dimension well, matching the enum and adding the KML/GeoJSON restriction, but find_id is never characterized beyond the vague phrase 'a run's results' — it does not say this is the find identifier or where to obtain one (e.g., from get_find or list_find_rows).

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Creates a download link for a run's results') and enumerates the exact output formats, which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like list_find_rows, get_find, or send_to_destination. The conditional format restriction ('KML and GeoJSON for records with places') further pins down what the tool actually produces.

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?

Usage is implied rather than prescribed: an agent can infer this is the tool for getting results out of a run, and the format caveat tells it not to request KML for place-less records. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as list_find_rows for inline reading or send_to_destination for pushing data onward.

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