share_get_download_url

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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds important security context beyond annotations: the returned link carries temporary permissions and should not be shared publicly. It does not contradict annotations.

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 short and front-loaded: it states the action first, then the redemption prerequisite, then the sharing warning. Every clause carries useful information and there is no waste.

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 the output schema, rich annotations, and single well-documented parameter, the description is nearly complete. The remaining gap is that it does not route the agent between this tool and the sibling share_download_material 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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%; the schema already documents material_id as a positive integer platform object ID. The description does not add further semantic detail about that parameter, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource: 获取临时下载链接 (get a temporary download link). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling share_download_material tool, so it misses the sibling-routing clarity of 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?

The phrase 可能需要先兑换资料 (may need to redeem the material first) gives an implied prerequisite, which is useful. However, it does not say when to use this versus share_download_material or share_purchase_material, nor does it state exclusions, so usage guidance remains partly inferred.

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