alphaportal_get_report_link

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: the link is one-time, downloadable as PDF, and intended to be opened in a browser. This gives an agent realistic expectations about the result without contradicting the annotations.

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 short sentences deliver the core behavior and return type with no filler. The action, resource, scope, and result are front-loaded.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient: it specifies the input via the schema, the output as a URL, and the nature of the link as one-time and browser-openable. Nothing critical 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?

Schema coverage for the single parameter is 100%: studentId is already documented as numeric and sourced from alphaportal_list_students. The description adds no additional parameter detail, but with full schema coverage, a 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 names a specific action ('Get'), a precise resource ('one-time PDF download link'), and scopes it to a student's transportation report with content hints (stops, schedule). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like alphaportal_get_student_stops, which return data rather than a one-time browser 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 use case is clear: call this when a downloadable PDF of a student's transportation report is needed. It does not explicitly discuss when-not-to-use or name alternative sibling tools, so it stops just short of a top score.

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