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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a retrieval operation ('Return download URLs') and an authorization prerequisite ('Requires report_id and session_key'), but it does not disclose whether the operation has side effects, whether URLs expire, or whether any special output handling is needed. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that states the action, scope, return type, and required inputs without fluff. The parenthetical deliverable list adds useful specificity without bloat.

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 simple two-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential points: what it returns, for which resources, and what credentials are needed. It could be more explicit about error cases or URL expiry, but nothing required for correct selection and invocation is obviously 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 interface schema already explains report_id (format) and session_key (header/stored key, not query string). The description merely repeats the required parameters without adding further semantic detail, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return download URLs for finalized ICR deliverables', with a parenthetical list of deliverable types. This is clearly distinct from siblings like precheck_score or precheck_start_review, which focus on scoring or starting a review.

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 description gives clear context: the tool is for finalized ICR deliverables, which implies it is not for in-progress work, and it names the required credentials (report_id and session_key). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer when to use it.

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