defender_get_package_sas_uri

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive. The description adds important behavioral context: the link is short-lived, grants access to sensitive forensic data, and should not be persisted. This goes beyond what annotations convey, though it doesn't specify expiration length or response format.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The first states the tool's purpose, and the second adds essential security guidance. Every sentence earns its place and the key action is 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 no output schema, the description gives enough to act: it names the resource, the parameter is documented in the schema, and it warns about the sensitive nature of the result. A small gap is that it doesn't explicitly say the returned value is a direct URI string, but 'download link' strongly implies this.

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 100%: the single required parameter action_id is already described as 'The machine action ID.' The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the schema carries the burden and 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 verb and resource: getting the short-lived download link of a collected investigation package. This clearly distinguishes the tool from the many sibling get_* tools, none of which produce a package download 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 context is clear: use this after an investigation package is collected, to obtain a shareable link. It also gives handling instructions—hand to a person, do not store in a note—though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions.

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