Get a time-limited signed URL to the original source file (PDF etc.). Use this tool when: - The user wants to find a pdf URL for a specific document - The user asks about presigned URL for a pdf Parameters: - document_id (required): Document ID.
Returns:
- PDF URL for a specific document with document_id and pdf_url| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document_id | Yes | Document ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by noting the URL is time-limited and signed, going beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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 fairly concise and front-loads the purpose. However, it includes a redundant bullet list for parameters that adds no new information, slightly reducing conciseness.
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 single-parameter tool with good annotations and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose, when to use it, and what it returns (PDF URL). Missing details about the time-limited nature are minor.
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% with one parameter (document_id) described as 'Document ID'. The description redundantly lists the same parameter without adding meaning beyond the schema, so no added value.
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 the tool gets a time-limited signed URL to the original source file (PDF etc.), specifying the verb 'get' and resource 'source URL'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_document_text and get_markdown by focusing on the signed URL for the original file.
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?
Explicit 'Use this tool when:' bullets provide clear context: when the user wants a PDF URL or presigned URL for a specific document. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but evidence_pull and get_document_text both return full text, which could cause confusion. Other tools like list_documents and get_markdown are clearly differentiated.
Names follow a mix of 'list_', 'get_', and one-off names like 'evidence_pull' and 'horizon_scan'. The verb_noun pattern is present but inconsistent.
16 tools is reasonable for a legal document retrieval server, though some functionality overlaps (e.g., multiple ways to get document text). Still well-scoped for the domain.
Covers browse, filter, and retrieve operations comprehensively. Missing a general text search tool, but horizon_scan offers a recent-changes scan. Minor gap.