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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses auth requirements (X-API-Key, api_key fallback), completion semantics tied to version, a retry/backoff strategy, and a versioning limitation that could cause unexpected results if missed. This is unusually rich operational context for a read-style tool.

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 front-loaded with the core return value, then layers on completion rules, retry guidance, versioning caveat, and auth details. Every sentence earns its place, but the dense run-on flow could be slightly better structured for scanning.

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?

The tool has no output schema and involves async completion, versioning, and auth, so the description needs to carry a lot. It covers those areas well, but omits the shape of the returned URLs (beyond naming snapshot/comparison) and does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, leaving a small gap.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters, including the origin of vault_id and the purpose of api_key. The description repeats the api_key fallback already present in the schema and adds no new meaning beyond what the structured field provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (Returns) and resource (report URLs for a vault), with the added detail of snapshot/comparison types. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools like get-code-vault-results or get-code-vault-summary, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives clear context for when to call: after vault creation or reanalysis, with explicit completion rules and a retry schedule. It also notes that the endpoint always returns the latest version only and prior versions become inaccessible after reanalysis. However, it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use this one, so it is a strong 4 rather than a 5.

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