get_report_pdf_url

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable details beyond the schema: the URL is public, expires after 7 days, and returns a plain URL rather than binary streaming. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, potential errors, or what happens if the report doesn't exist, which would be useful for full transparency.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured: two sentences, with the primary purpose stated first, then equivalence and MCP-friendliness. Every sentence adds value and avoids redundancy.

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 tool of this simplicity, the description is complete: it explains the 7-day expiry, the URL return format, and how it relates to a sibling tool. An output schema exists, so the return value is already defined. No significant gaps remain for the target use case.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (report_id and lang) with descriptions. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, only reinforcing the URL behavior. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: generating a 7-day public URL for a report as PDF. It uses a specific verb ('generate') and resource ('report PDF URL'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tool create_report_share_link by noting it packages the equivalent into one call.

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 description provides clear context for when to use this tool: when a plain, fetchable URL is needed without binary streaming, positioning it as an MCP-friendly alternative. It references create_report_share_link as the equivalent but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name other alternatives, so slightly short of a 5.

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