Shared report summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond them: it does not say whether the token is validated, whether access can fail for revoked links, or what form the "summary" takes. Only the endpoint path is new, which is low-value for an agent.

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 definition is a single short sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than concise. The parenthetical HTTP route is the only added information and is of marginal use to an agent choosing between tools.

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?

With no output schema and one required credential parameter, the description must at least convey what is returned; it does not. It also leaves the relationship to the html/pdf variants unresolved, which is the key ambiguity given these siblings.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("advshare_ share token (the credential)"), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description merely echoes the {token} path placeholder and adds no format, sourcing, or error information. Baseline 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 restates the title verbatim ("Shared report summary") and appends the HTTP route. There is no verb describing the operation, and nothing distinguishes it from the sibling publicReports_html and publicReports_pdf tools, whose names suggest near-identical token-based retrieval.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. An agent cannot tell from this text whether to call publicReports_get, publicReports_html, or publicReports_pdf for a given token, nor whether the token must first be obtained from shareLinks_create.

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