alphaportal_get_report_link

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already covers safety, and the description adds crucial behavioral detail: the link is 'one-time' (single-use) and must be 'opened in a browser'. This goes beyond the annotation and informs the agent of link expiry and usage constraints, which is valuable for a correct invocation.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and return type without extraneous detail. Every word adds value, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential points: what it returns (a one-time URL), what it contains (report with stops and schedule), and the intended usage (open in browser). No critical information is missing for correct invocation.

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?

The schema covers the single parameter studentId with a description that references alphaportal_list_students, providing full context. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, so it relies entirely on the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Get'), the specific resource ('one-time PDF download link for a student's transportation report'), and the content of the report ('stops, schedule'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools that return data directly (e.g., alphaportal_get_student_stops) by emphasizing the link, not the data itself.

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 description provides clear context—it is for obtaining a PDF link of a transportation report—but does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it. The agent can infer it is for report downloads rather than live data, but no direct comparison to siblings is given.

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