evidence_report_pdf_url_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds useful context: the resource is a signed PDF, the returned URL is the same as the sibling tool's, and prior generation is required. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 do exactly what is needed: front-load the purpose, then provide conditions, sibling distinction, and prerequisite. No filler or redundant phrasing; 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?

With a single parameter, full annotations, and an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage, and prerequisite. The tool is simple enough that no additional behavioral or return-value details are required.

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?

Input schema fully covers the parameter (reportId as required UUID). The description adds semantic meaning by clarifying that only reportId is needed and linking it to the generate step, which enriches understanding beyond the schema's format and description.

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 retrieves a download URL for a report's signed PDF using only reportId, and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling evidence_case_file_report_pdf_url_get by noting that no caseFileId is needed and that it returns the same document. This makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage conditions: use when holding only reportId, with no caseFileId required. It names the alternative sibling and states the prerequisite chain evidence_case_file_report_generate → reportId, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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