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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, but the description adds real operational context: the link expires in 5 minutes and is a bearer link that must not be logged or shared. That security caveat is exactly the kind of disclosure annotations cannot convey. Minor gap: nothing about permission requirements for generating the link.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the operational caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

With no output schema, the description adequately implies the return value (a signed URL) and covers expiry and handling. It is nearly complete for a low-complexity three-parameter tool, missing only a note on the request_id parameter and any error/expiry behavior.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden and largely does: it tells the agent the ids are 'per_' and 'pdoc_' display ids, mapping to person_id and document_id. The third parameter (request_id) is left unexplained in both schema and description, so it does not fully compensate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Mint a signed download URL for one person document.' An agent can immediately tell this apart from yardstick_people_documents_list, which enumerates documents rather than producing a link.

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 agent is expected to infer that this is called after listing documents when an actual downloadable link is needed. No alternative or precondition (e.g. 'use list first to obtain pdoc_ ids') is named.

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