Shared report (HTML)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes nothing further: it does not say whether the token grants unauthenticated access, whether the response is raw HTML or a URL, or whether token expiry produces an error.

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?

It is a single front-loaded fragment with no wasted words, and the route is useful orientation. The brevity is a virtue structurally even though the content is thin.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back — inline HTML, a redirect, a signed URL — and it says nothing about that. For a public, credential-bearing retrieval endpoint, this leaves a meaningful gap.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it fully (100% coverage) as the advshare_ share token acting as the credential. The description adds no syntax, format, or expiry information beyond the schema, so 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 restates the title and adds the HTTP route (GET /v1/public/reports/{token}/html), which hints that this retrieves an HTML rendering of a shared report. However, it never explicitly says 'returns the rendered HTML of a shared report' and does not distinguish itself from close siblings publicReports_get and publicReports_pdf, so an agent must infer the difference from name suffixes alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all. With publicReports_get and publicReports_pdf in the sibling list, the obvious selection question — HTML vs PDF vs raw data — is left entirely unanswered.

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