get_report_builder_get_report_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully identifies the HTTP method as GET and explains where parameters should be placed, but it does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, response format expectations, or whether the tool returns a link versus file content.

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?

The description is compact at two sentences and front-loads the primary purpose ('Download report'). It avoids filler and quickly moves to parameter routing instructions, though the sentence 'Download report Calls `GET...`' is slightly awkward in structure.

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?

Given zero annotations, 0% schema coverage, and four generic parameter objects, this description is not sufficient for an agent to construct a correct request. It lacks concrete filter/pagination details, required header names, authentication context, and any distinction from the many sibling report tools. The presence of an output schema helps with return values but does not fill the request-construction gap.

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?

The schema has four generic, undocumented objects (0% description coverage), so the description's parameter routing guidance is valuable: route IDs in path_params, filters/pagination in query, and required headers in headers. However, it stops short of specifying actual filter or pagination key names, route ID formats, or which headers are required, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema detail.

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 'Download report' and names the exact endpoint `GET /report_builder/get_report_link`, making the action and resource clear. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling report-builder tools, but the verb-plus-endpoint is enough to identify what the tool does.

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?

'Download report' implies the use case of retrieving a report link or download. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over sibling tools like get_report_builder_standard_reports or post_report_builder_create_report_job, and no when-not-to-use conditions are given.

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