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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no destructive behavior is implied. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond these annotations: the output is base64-encoded and the default artifact is the original PDF, which helps an agent understand invocation results even without an output schema.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the primary purpose and the default behavior efficiently.

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 simple read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential details: what is downloaded, the encoding, and the default variant. The main gap is the lack of guidance on how it relates to sibling download/get tools, but it remains mostly complete for direct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both document_id and artifact. The description's 'defaults to the original PDF' restates the schema's artifact default rather than adding substantial new parameter meaning, so 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 identifies the action ('Download'), the resource ('a document artifact'), and the output form ('base64-encoded string; defaults to the original PDF'). It does not explicitly differentiate this from the sibling assinafy_download_signed_document, though the mention of 'original PDF' is an implicit hint.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like assinafy_download_signed_document or assinafy_get_document. It explains what the tool does but not the conditions or use cases that should lead an agent to select it.

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