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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the URL is short-lived (15 minutes), carries its own authority, needs no credentials, and only works after generation completes. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the operational behavior.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the action and lifetime, the second explains how to consume the result, the third states the precondition. Information is front-loaded and there is zero waste.

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?

The tool has a single parameter, an output schema, and clear annotations. The description covers the key operational context: the URL's temporary nature, no-credential access, and the precondition. It doesn't describe error cases (e.g., what happens if the report isn't ready), but for a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, this is nearly complete.

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. It mentions 'report your account can access' and 'once the report has finished generating', which implies report_id must reference an accessible, completed report. However, it doesn't explicitly explain what report_id is or how to obtain it, though the sibling get_report and search_reports tools provide that context. The description adds some meaning but not exhaustive parameter semantics.

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 ('Mint'), a resource ('short-lived direct download URL for the generated PDF of a report'), and a clear scope ('your account can access'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_report and get_report_section by focusing on the download link rather than the report content.

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 says when to use it: only once the report has finished generating, and it tells the agent to poll get_report until report_status is 'complete'. It also explains how to use the returned URL (plain GET, no credentials), which is essential usage guidance.

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