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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds real behavioral detail: the link expires after hours, reads only that one file, supports HTTP Range/resume via curl -C -, and can be re-fetched by calling again. This is exactly the value-add expected beyond structured fields.

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?

Front-loads the core outcome, then layers return shape, resume capability, expiry handling, and constraints in order. It is dense but every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is redundant filler.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description fully compensates by enumerating the return fields (link, expiresAt, name, MIME type, byte size, curl command). Combined with the prerequisites and anti-pattern warning, an agent has everything required to call and use the result 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains file/assetId/projectId semantics thoroughly. The description adds return-shape detail but no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get a temporary download link for an asset's file in the cloud') and immediately clarifies what the link is (a presigned HTTPS URL scoped to one file). An agent can tell this apart from read_asset, which would return content rather than a link.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('give the link to the user when they want to save the file, or run the command from the agent machine'), when NOT to ('Do not fetch the file through tool calls'), and a prerequisite ('a file still uploading or processing cannot be downloaded yet: call wait_for_asset first').

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