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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: the URL is short-lived, and the tool returns 404 after the dashboard sandbox expires in about 12 hours. This gives an agent clear expectations about failure modes and URL lifetime.

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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the expiration/404 behavior as useful secondary detail. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary restating of what the schema and annotations already provide.

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 URL-minting tool with read-only and idempotent annotations, the description covers purpose, expiry, and the key failure mode. It does not specify how to obtain artifactId/attachmentId or describe the success response, but the return value is strongly implied and no output schema exists.

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 50%: attachmentId has a description, artifactId does not. The description provides useful domain context ('dashboard', 'attachment') that helps infer the roles of both parameters, but it does not explicitly explain artifactId or how the two IDs relate, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 names a precise operation ('Mint a short-lived presigned URL') and a specific resource ('a file attached to a Duvo Pulse dashboard message'), which clearly distinguishes it from generic file download tools. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, but the domain scoping is clear.

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 phrase 'to download or preview a file attached to a Duvo Pulse dashboard message' establishes a clear use case, and the context is enough to differentiate from upload, export, or dashboard-level download tools. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops 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.