Shared report (PDF)

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 structurally. The description adds nothing beyond the endpoint path: it does not state that the token is an unauthenticated public share credential, that the response is binary PDF content, or any rate/expiry behavior on share tokens.

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?

Extremely short and front-loaded with the resource and format, so there is no filler. But the brevity comes at the cost of substance – the parenthetical endpoint is the only additional information and the whole definition is two fragments.

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 simple one-parameter tool this could be adequate, but without an output schema the description should say that the call returns PDF bytes rather than JSON, and should hint at what the shared report contains. The public/unauthenticated nature of the endpoint is also left unstated.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains that token is the 'advshare_ share token (the credential)'. The description adds no further meaning about token format, validity, or scope, 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?

Names the resource ('Shared report') and the output format ('PDF'), plus the underlying endpoint GET /v1/public/reports/{token}/pdf, which implies a retrieval. However, the verb is only implied and the wording largely restates the title; it never explicitly says 'download/retrieve the PDF' or explicitly contrasts with publicReports_html and publicReports_get.

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 at all. Nothing tells the agent to prefer this over publicReports_html or publicReports_get, nor under what conditions a PDF rendering is the right choice (e.g., print/archive vs inline viewing).

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