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

Annotations are sparse (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description carries real weight and delivers: it discloses that the link is signed, expires in 5 minutes, and is rate-limited to 10 per order. That quota and expiry context is exactly what an agent needs to avoid wasted or repeated calls. It stops short of explaining auth or error 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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the key constraint (5-minute validity) and the quota front-loaded. 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-required-param tool with no output schema, the description covers what the return is (a signed link), its lifetime, and its quota. A brief note on failure modes (expired/invalid token, quota exhausted) would make it fully 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 coverage is 100%, so order_id and order_token are already fully documented, including their formats and provenance from create_order. The description adds no param-level detail beyond the schema, making 3 the correct baseline.

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+resource ('signed link to download the full-resolution original') and scopes it to a paid order, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_photo or get_license. It does not name a sibling directly, so it lands just below the top tier.

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 'paid order' qualifier implies when this is applicable, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., get_photo for previews), and no stated prerequisites beyond the order being paid. Usage is left to inference.

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