get_pdf_report_link

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds key behavioral details: 'Pure URL construction — no scan triggered, no network call from this tool.' It also explains the return value and the behavior of fetching the returned URL, which is not captured in 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 four sentences, each providing distinct value: purpose, side-effect negation, return behavior, and usage alternatives. It is front-loaded with the core function and contains no redundant filler.

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 (one parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, how to use the result, and when to choose alternatives. It also explicitly states auth requirements and side effects, making it complete for an agent.

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% (the only parameter 'domain' is fully described in the schema). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond referring to 'for a domain,' 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Build the direct PDF report endpoint URL for a domain.' It uses a specific verb ('build') and resource ('PDF report endpoint URL'), and explicitly distinguishes from siblings by naming get_badge_link and create_report_snapshot as alternatives.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use for downloadable shareable reports; use get_badge_link for an embeddable SVG status badge instead, or create_report_snapshot for an immutable hashed evidence URL.' It also states 'No auth,' covering prerequisites.

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