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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuinely non-obvious traits: the link is signed and expires after 15 minutes, which materially affects how an agent should handle and relay the result.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the operational caveat. No redundant restatement of the tool name or 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?

For a two-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers what is needed: what it returns, its lifetime, and who should consume it. Only the fallback path when a requested format is unavailable is left implicit.

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%, and the schema already defines both fields with patterns, examples, and a pointer to get_report for valid formats. The description's 'e.g. CSV or MISP' merely echoes the schema's format examples, adding no new meaning.

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 one report export', with concrete format examples (CSV, MISP). It is clearly distinct from the sibling get_report, which enumerates available formats, though the description itself does not name that sibling explicitly.

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 a clear usage constraint: the link 'is meant to be opened by the user, not downloaded here', which tells the agent not to attempt consumption itself. It lacks an explicit routing statement to get_report for discovering available formats, leaving that only in the schema text.

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