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

The description discloses that it returns a time-bounded URL, not raw binary, and explains the local vs cloud behavior. It also includes a security note about treating stored content as data. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the description adds meaningful context beyond those, though it does not cover rate limits or error handling.

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 structured with a clear lead sentence explaining the purpose, followed by the HTTP path and additional context. It is moderately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose, though the inclusion of the URL path and schema reference adds some redundancy given the lack of an output schema.

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?

Given no output schema and only partial schema coverage, the description covers the key aspects: return type, multi-space handling, and security considerations. It does not address error cases or authentication details beyond multi-space, but for a download URL tool, it is reasonably complete 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?

Schema coverage is 50% (only targetSpaceId has a description). The description reinforces the targetSpaceId parameter with the auth_verify instruction and multi-space guidance. However, assetId is not described in the schema or the description, and the description does not explain how to obtain it or its format, leaving a gap that is only partially compensated.

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 ('get') and resource (asset's binary content) and explains that it returns a URL plus metadata, distinguishing it from raw-binary responses. It clarifies the tool's scope and differentiates it from sibling asset tools like assets_get or assets_read_text_lines, even without naming them.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (when a download URL is needed) and includes an explicit instruction for multi-space accounts (call auth_verify and pass targetSpaceId). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives, leaving the differentiation to implication.

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