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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds substantial operational context: the download_url requires no sign-in, expires at expires_at within a few minutes, and a fresh call yields a new link. That is exactly the kind of ephemeral-link/auth behavior an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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, front-loaded with what the link is, then what the document contains and excludes, then the practical constraints. Every sentence carries distinct information with no padding.

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 enumerated, yet the description still surfaces the two fields that matter operationally (download_url, expires_at) plus auth and freshness behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call and consume this tool correctly is missing.

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% and the sole parameter match_id is documented in-schema as coming 'from list_matches.' The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get a download link for the evidence PDF of one match.' It further pins the artifact's identity as 'the same document the dashboard exports' and its contents, so an agent can distinguish it from get_match and get_match_screenshot without opening any 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?

Gives clear usage context ('for enforcement work such as takedown requests and disputes') and implicitly scopes it against related tools by noting it carries 'observed facts only: no verdict, assessment summary or possible next steps.' No sibling tool is named explicitly and no when-not condition is stated, so it falls short of a 5.

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