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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavior: the URL is short-lived, the server verifies retained immutable package/document authority, bucket keys are rejected, and project-bound editors face additional jobId matching requirements. These details materially reduce the risk of misuse.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by usage constraints and refusal conditions. Every sentence contributes useful information without filler or repetition.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose, parameter meaning, security validation, and invocation conditions completely enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

Although schema description coverage is only 50%, the description explains that receiptId comes from a ready import/export template job and that jobId is required for project-bound editors and must match the bound source project. This adds substantial meaning beyond the sparse schema descriptions.

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 and resource: refresh the short-lived download URL for an exact organization-owned portable template package receipt. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings such as export_template_package or refresh_render_url by scoping it to receipt-based package downloads.

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 says to supply the receiptId from a ready import/export template job, warns never to pass bucket keys or arbitrary archive URLs, and states that project-bound editors must pass the exact ready export jobId. It also notes that an unrelated job or receipt will be refused, giving clear when/when-not conditions.

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