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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Previous ... result' hints at persistence, but nothing is said about auth/permission requirements, whether share tokens expire, result freshness, or error behavior for an invalid token.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description should hint at what is returned (e.g., stored analysis content or metadata), and with no annotations it should mention any access constraint on the token.

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 single parameter is documented in the schema as 'The share token of the analysis'. The description restates this as 'share token' without adding format, source, or validation detail, 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 names a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (PDF analysis result) along with the lookup key (share token), which cleanly separates it from analyze_pdf (creates) and list_analyses (lists). It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the fetch-by-token framing makes the distinction inferable.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'by its share token' signals the precondition that the caller already holds a token, which distinguishes it from list_analyses. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool or what to do when no token is available.

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