get_report_csv

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that the link expires after 3 minutes (a critical constraint) and clarifies that reports must be ready (a prerequisite condition). However, it doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, the second specifies prerequisites, and the third adds critical behavioral detail (link expiration). Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, read-only operation, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, and key behavioral constraints. The only minor gap is the lack of output format details (e.g., what the link structure looks like), but this is partially mitigated by the clear purpose statement.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'reportId' fully documented in the schema as 'Paddle ID of the report.' The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 specific action ('retrieve a link to a CSV file') and resource ('a report from Paddle by its ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_report' (which checks status) and 'create_report' (which creates reports). It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Only returned for reports that are ready') and when not to use it (if reports aren't ready), providing a clear alternative ('The status of a report can be checked using the get_report tool'). This gives complete guidance on usage context and prerequisites.

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