Create a download link for a DataLens bucket object

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the link is a bearer credential ("works for whoever holds it"), it expires ("for a time"), it is returned in the result, and the endpoint is experimental and untested ("not measured"). It stops short of stating auth/permission requirements.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the nature of the artifact before the handling caveat and the experimental disclaimer. Slightly meandering ("and it comes in this tool's result") but every sentence carries information.

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, the description usefully states that the link arrives in the result and that it is time-limited and sensitive. It is nearly complete for a URL-minting tool, though it omits what permissions are needed and the exact response shape.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents path and cloud_environment_id. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names the resource and scope precisely ("a signed link to read one object of the bucket"), and the title supplies the verb "Create". It implicitly contrasts with the sibling upload_url_create (read vs upload) but never names it, so sibling differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

"Hand it to the person and do not repeat it" is guidance on handling the result, not on when to choose this tool. Nothing says when to prefer it over bucket_object_metadata_get or bucket_upload_url_create, and no prerequisites (permissions, bucket state) are given.

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