Get Signed URL

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that the URL is temporary, but says nothing about expiry behavior, default duration, or whether the URL can be re-fetched.

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 with no filler, though it is arguably terse enough to lose useful routing context. Every word earns its place, but there is little structure to evaluate.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description is minimally adequate. It is missing the one thing that matters most here: how this differs from mistral_download_file / mistral_get_file.

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 schema already documents file_id and the expiry parameter including its 1–168 hour range and 24-hour default. The description adds nothing beyond the word 'temporary', so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get a temporary download URL for a file'), which is clearer than a bare name restatement. However, it doesn't differentiate from the closely related siblings mistral_download_file and mistral_get_file, so an agent must still infer which to pick.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this rather than mistral_download_file or mistral_get_file, which is exactly the ambiguity this tool sits inside. No prerequisites or context conditions are stated.

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