Get AMC result download URLs

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by disclosing URL expiration ('expire after a short period') and the signed/CSV nature, which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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 two sentences: the first states the core function, the second adds a critical behavioral detail. No redundant words; everything earns its place.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and a key constraint (expiration) but does not describe the return structure (e.g., array of URLs) or error conditions (e.g., what if execution is not succeeded). With no output schema, this information would be helpful for agents.

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 50%; only entityId and marketplaceId have descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific guidance. For the two undocumented parameters (instanceId, executionId), the agent must rely on naming alone, which is insufficient.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves signed download URLs for succeeded AMC workflow executions. It specifies the output format (CSV) and a key constraint (URLs expire). This differentiates it from sibling tools like amc_get_execution (status) and download_report (generic reports).

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 description specifies the tool is for 'SUCCEEDED' executions, providing clear context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings, leaving some ambiguity.

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