evidence_case_file_report_pdf_url_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it mentions the signed document nature, the required prior generation step, and the scope of what is returned. No contradiction with 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 tightly packed sentences: the first states the purpose, the second covers prerequisites and alternative. No redundant words, front-loaded with the key action.

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?

Given the simple nature (2 required params, read-only, output schema present), the description covers all essential context: what it retrieves, the required sequence, and the alternative for broader needs. No gaps for the agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds meaning by specifying that reportId is obtained from the generate step, complementing the schema's existing origin note for caseFileId. This provides the causal chain for parameter values.

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 tool's function: retrieving a download URL for a signed PDF document of a case-file report. It distinguishes from the sibling tool evidence_case_file_report_zip_url_get by specifying it returns only the signed PDF, not the full evidence package.

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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite chain: evidence_case_file_report_generate must be called to obtain the reportId. Also provides a clear alternative (use evidence_case_file_report_zip_url_get for the full package), guiding when not to use this tool.

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