Inspections Get Inspection Web Report Link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the returned URL is permanent and shareable, which is useful, but it does not mention authentication requirements, whether the link requires an existing/completed inspection, or any side effects. The basic read-only behavior is implied by 'Get' but not explicitly safe.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The main purpose and the key output trait are both front-loaded.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, this is nearly complete: it states the purpose, output type, and sharing behavior. It could be improved by noting whether the report link is available before inspection completion, but that is a minor 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 only parameter, audit_id, is fully described in the schema as 'The unique audit/inspection ID.' The tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameter, and with 100% schema coverage the baseline of 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 action ('Get') and a distinct resource ('shareable web report link for a Mitti inspection'), and clarifies the output is a permanent URL. This distinguishes it from siblings like inspections_get_inspection, which returns inspection data rather than a shareable 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?

The phrase 'can be shared with others to view the inspection report' gives clear usage context: use this when a shareable link is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, but for a one-purpose link tool the context is sufficient.

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