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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds two facts they cannot convey: the output is materialized into FileStore, and the tool never fans out across Locations. It does not say what happens if ``save_as`` collides with an existing FileStore file, which would be the remaining behavioral risk.

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?

Two short blocks: the action first, then the one parameter that carries a conditional rule. No filler, nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but with six parameters at 0% schema coverage the definition is not sufficient to call the tool: the description explains one parameter and leaves the identification strategy (file_id vs udf_name/shortname/property_id) completely undetermined.

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 0% across six parameters, yet only ``location`` is explained (its conditional requirement and no-fan-out behavior). The agent is left guessing how ``file_id``, ``udf_name``, ``shortname``, ``property_id``, and ``save_as`` relate — e.g. whether the UDF is targeted by name or by file id, or what happens when save_as is empty.

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?

Specific verb and resource ("Pull a file attached to a property UDF") with concrete examples of file kinds (W9, COI, license), which separates it from download_unit_attachment and download_property_tax_bill by attachment owner. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it replaces, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Gives one real usage rule: ``location`` is required only when the connection has several Locations, with a pointer to ``list_locations``, and states it never fans out. It says nothing about when to pick this over download_attachment, download_unit_attachment, or get_property_udfs, so sibling routing is left to inference.

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