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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial operational context beyond them: the address needs no token, expires after an hour, a PDF takes a second or two to render on fetch, and non-Pro plans get a pro_required refusal. These are exactly the behaviors an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then formats, then operational caveats. It is somewhat dense with nested clauses in the format sentence, but every sentence carries information an agent can act on rather than 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be re-explained, and the description covers prerequisites, plan gating, expiry, and latency. The one notable omission is routing versus the sibling share_scan_report.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining what each enum value actually yields (csv = image-address spreadsheet with measurements and fixes; pdf = client-facing findings report). This adds real meaning to the 'csv or pdf' schema entry.

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 clear verb+resource ('One download address for a finished page scan's report') and distinguishes its two output modes. However, it never differentiates from the strongly-related sibling share_scan_report, so an agent cannot tell them apart from the description alone.

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 implies prerequisites ('a finished page scan') and gives a gating condition ('A Pro feature, refused with pro_required on other plans'), which is genuinely useful. But it offers no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance against share_scan_report or create_zip, which also produce downloadable artifacts.

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