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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: links stream from Amazon, expire after 15 minutes, and document bytes are never returned inline. This expiry/streaming detail is exactly the kind of operational trait an agent needs and is not present in the structured fields.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the expiry and prerequisite caveats. No filler sentences. A minor density cost from packing expiry, streaming, and confirmation-ID caveats into one long second sentence keeps it from a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the safety profile is already carried by annotations. Given that, the description covers the remaining gaps an agent needs — link lifetime, delivery mechanism, and which document types require the confirmation ID — making it complete for a link-generation tool.

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 every one of the 12 parameters is already documented in the schema, including the conditional 'Required for carton_labels, pallet_labels...' notes. The description largely restates these document-type groupings and adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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+resource (download links for FBA inbound shipping documents) and enumerates the exact document types covered: item labels, carton labels, pallet labels, BOL, delivery challan. It is unambiguous what the tool returns. However, it never names or differentiates itself from adjacent siblings such as get_report_document or get_inbound_shipments, so it earns a 4 rather than 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 concrete prerequisite context: carton/pallet labels and BOLs require the shipment's FBA confirmation ID, which only exists after placement confirmation, effectively telling the agent when the call will and won't work. It does not, however, point to any alternative tool or state exclusions relative to siblings, so it stops short of the explicit when/when-not routing a 5 requires.

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