alphaportal_get_report_link

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries the important behavioral load and does so well: single-use URL, credential-like, usable by anyone holding it without signing in, and explicit handling warnings. This is exactly the security context an agent needs before surfacing the link.

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?

Two sentences with zero padding: the first describes the operation and return, the second front-loads the security constraint before any elaboration. Every clause earns its place.

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, yet the description still tells the agent what comes back (a browser-openable URL) and how that URL behaves. Combined with the single-parameter schema and annotations, nothing needed to invoke or relay the result is missing.

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 schema description coverage is 100% — the schema already documents studentId as the numeric ID from alphaportal_list_students. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the 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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (one-time PDF download link) plus the report contents (stops, schedule). An agent can tell this apart from read-only siblings like alphaportal_get_student_stops, which return data directly rather than a download URL.

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 gives handling guidance ('hand it only to the signed-in user') but never says when to choose this tool over alphaportal_get_student_stops or alphaportal_get_student, which cover similar data. Usage is implied by the return type, not stated as a selection rule.

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