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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and delivers: version-based completion semantics, exponential backoff retry policy, the destructive-ish behavior that reanalysis removes access to prior versions, and the X-API-Key/auth requirement with an api_key fallback. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs beyond the basic 'returns URLs' claim.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, completion rules, retry policy, and versioning/auth constraints. The most important identifying information is front-loaded, and the dense operational details follow in a logical order with zero filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description is operationally complete: it defines the return artifacts (snapshot/comparison URLs, null comparison for 1.0.0), the readiness signal, the polling cadence, the versioning limitation, and the authentication path. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this endpoint correctly is left to guesswork.

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% — both api_key and vault_id are documented in the schema. The description reinforces the api_key fallback ('If headers aren't supported, pass api_key in arguments') but adds no new per-parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with 'Returns report URLs (snapshot/comparison) for a vault' — a specific verb, resource, and scope that clearly differentiates it from siblings like get-code-vault-results and get-code-vault-summary. The word 'URLs' pins down exactly what artifact this tool produces.

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 clear operational context: completion rules tell the agent when to expect ready data versus a null comparison, and the backoff schedule dictates how to poll when not ready. It notes the latest-version-only limitation ('prior versions are no longer accessible here') but does not explicitly name an alternative tool for retrieving prior versions, so it falls 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.