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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: the URL is short-lived, points at raw file content, and requires no authentication until expiry — context an agent could not infer from the schema or annotations.

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 tight sentences with zero filler. The core behavior (return presigned URL) is front-loaded, and the supporting details about content and expiry follow immediately.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by describing the returned URL and its expiry behavior. It is nearly complete, though it omits error behavior for invalid or expired file ids.

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 both fileId and disposition are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the fileId source (drive_list_files) but adds nothing about disposition semantics beyond what the schema states, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns a short-lived presigned URL for a Faivelo Drive file by id. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling drive_list_files by noting where the id comes from, so the agent can differentiate it without opening schemas.

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 ties usage to the drive_list_files workflow ('from drive_list_files'), giving clear context for when this tool applies. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives (e.g., get_attachment for email attachments) or state failure conditions for invalid/expired ids.

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