evidence_case_file_report_zip_url_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the dependency on prior generation and the packaged contents, providing useful context beyond 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 concise sentences: first states the purpose, second states the prerequisite. No redundant or vague wording.

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 URL getter with output schema present, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and the package contents. Sibling differentiation is clear enough given the tool name and description.

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%, and both parameters already have descriptive text (mandatory UUIDs, source for caseFileId). The description only references the same parameters without adding additional semantics.

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?

Clearly states it retrieves a download URL for a complete ZIP package of a case-file report, specifying the contents (signed PDF plus evidence files and verification material). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like evidence_case_file_report_pdf_url_get.

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 call (evidence_case_file_report_generate) and required identifiers (reportId, caseFileId). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like pdf_url_get or evidence_report_zip_url_get, though the 'complete ZIP' phrasing implies when 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.