Get document public URL

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering the operation's safety and repeatability. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the returned URL is shareable and accessible without authentication/login. It does not mention URL expiration or permissions, but for a simple public-URL generator the key behavioral trait is disclosed.

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 a single sentence with no filler. The main outcome ('Returns a shareable public URL') is front-loaded, and the key condition ('viewable without a Billingo login') is included succinctly.

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 one-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool, the description covers the essential behavior and access requirements. There is no output schema, but stating that it 'Returns a shareable public URL' gives sufficient expectation of the result. Minor missing details like URL expiration or response shape could be added, but they are not critical for correct invocation.

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?

There is only one parameter, 'id', and the schema description fully documents it as 'Document id.' With 100% schema description coverage, the description adds little beyond connecting 'document' to the public URL concept, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Returns'), a precise resource ('shareable public URL for the document'), and a key distinguishing trait ('viewable without a Billingo login'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like billingo_get_document or billingo_download_document, which do not provide a public shareable URL.

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 implies the use case: when you need a publicly accessible link that does not require the recipient to have a Billingo account. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide between this and document retrieval/download tools.

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