evidence_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, covering the safety profile. Description adds that it retrieves a download URL for the complete ZIP package and mentions the prerequisite, but no additional behavioral traits such as rate limits or response details. 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?

Description is two sentences. First sentence states purpose and differentiator. Second sentence provides prerequisite. Both are essential with no redundancy or fluff.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering read-only behavior, the description is sufficient for a 1-parameter tool. It specifies the package returned, the precondition, and the input source. No major gaps identified.

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 reportId described as 'MANDATORY. UUID of the report.' The description adds context by explaining that the reportId is obtained from evidence_case_file_report_generate, which is useful workflow information. However, since the schema already fully documents the parameter, the description's added value is modest.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Retrieves' and clearly identifies the resource: 'a report's complete ZIP package' with access condition 'when you only hold the reportId'. It explicitly references sibling tool evidence_case_file_report_zip_url_get, clarifying it returns the same package, which distinguishes it from other evidence/report tools.

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 phrase 'when you only hold the reportId' provides a clear usage context, implying this tool is for reportId-based access rather than case-file-based access. It also states the prerequisite 'Requires: evidence_case_file_report_generate → reportId', which tells the user the required prior step. However, it doesn't explicitly list alternative tools to use in other situations.

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