evidence_download_url_create

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 description only needs to supplement. It adds the temporary-URL nature and equivalence to the sibling endpoint, which is useful, though it omits expiration details.

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 contain the action, scope, prerequisite, and alternative without filler. The sentence structure front-loads the core purpose and places supporting details afterward.

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 single-parameter tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, and sibling differentiation. A minor gap is the lack of URL expiration or response format, but this is not essential for this simple 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?

The schema fully documents evidenceId, and the description adds practical context: it is the sole identifier required (no group path) and can be obtained from generate_evidence or evidence_group_evidence_register. This complements the schema rather than repeating it.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Creates a temporary download URL for an evidence's stored file.' It also clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling evidence_group_evidence_download_url_create by noting 'no group path needed' and 'same bytes.'

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('when you only hold the evidenceId'), names the alternative for the group-path case, and provides the prerequisite evidence-generation flow. This gives the agent clear decision boundaries.

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