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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds important operational details: the address works without a token, expires after an hour, PDF generation takes a second or two, and non-paid plans are refused with pro_required. These are concrete behavioral traits an agent needs for correct invocation and error handling.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds only decision-relevant details about format, expiration, latency, and plan requirements. Despite being dense, every clause earns its place.

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 read-only export tool with a full schema and an output schema, the description supplies the missing operational context: format contents, token-free access, expiration, latency, and paid-plan gating. Nothing important for correct use appears to be left out.

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 100%, so the baseline is high, and the description adds meaningful format semantics by explaining what csv and pdf each contain. The id parameter is not further elaborated in the description, but its meaning is already fully covered in 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?

The description clearly states that this returns a download address for a finished page scan's report, and it distinguishes the two output formats csv and pdf. It does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from close siblings such as share_scan_report, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives useful format-selection guidance: csv for a spreadsheet of image addresses and findings, pdf for a client-facing printed report. It also states a paid-plan prerequisite and the pro_required failure mode, but it does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when to use this versus share_scan_report.

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