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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating the operation; it does not disclose details like authentication requirements, error handling, or whether the URL is temporary or permanent. With the annotation covering the read-only nature, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action without any wasted words. Perfectly concise.

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 read-only retrieval tool, the description is nearly complete. It clearly states the output (download URL) and the required input is implied by the tool name. The optional artifact parameter is covered by the schema. Lack of an output schema is acceptable since the return type is a simple URL string, which is obvious from the description.

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%, with both parameters documented. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning; it relies entirely on the schema. Baseline 3 applies when schema carries the load.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource ('Get download URL for an SDK'), clearly indicating the tool returns a download link. It distinguishes itself from siblings like sdk_generate, sdk_list, and sdk_status by focusing solely on retrieval of a URL, not generation, listing, or status reporting.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While siblings like sdk_generate and sdk_list exist, the description does not mention them or any conditions for selection. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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