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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the 1-hour presigned URL lifetime, the regeneration semantics, the dependency on git availability with a documented fallback, and the exact downstream content of the PDF. It omits anything about authentication/permission requirements for the underlying scan, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Content is front-loaded with the core action and expiration behavior before the prerequisite instructions. The only waste is mild duplication: the opening sentence about the presigned URL is restated in the 'Returns' block, and the Args/Returns sections re-cover ground already stated.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description is not obliged to explain return shapes, and it still notes that a URL plus scan metadata come back. Combined with the prerequisite and expiration disclosures, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly despite the absence of annotations.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: scan_uuid is sourced to suggest_code, and repo_path is given both origin (a normalized GitHub URL) and a concrete format example, resolving the misleading 'path' name. Both required parameters are fully disambiguated in prose.

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 gives a precise verb and resource ('Get the PDF report URL for a previous code scan') and enumerates exactly what the artifact contains (PRI score, sub-indices, category scores, findings). It ties the tool to its sibling suggest_code as the source of scan_uuid, so an agent can place it in the workflow without reading either schema.

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?

It states the prerequisite workflow plainly: obtain scan_uuid from a previous suggest_code call, and run `git remote get-url origin` (with SSH-to-HTTPS normalization) before invoking. It also tells the agent what to do when the URL expires, i.e. call again with the same scan_uuid. It stops short of naming any competing sibling or a 'do not use when' condition, but no real alternative exists here.

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