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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it states the return is a URL, explicitly says it never returns ZIP bytes, and discloses that delivery tokens are not logged. These are non-obvious behavioral traits that an agent needs to know before invoking the tool.

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 very short, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds distinct value: what it returns, what it never returns, and a logging behavior. There is no filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter tool with a complete input schema and an output schema, the description provides all essential context: the return type, the completion precondition, a negative contract, and a privacy-related behavior. Nothing critical is missing for correct selection and 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?

The input schema already fully documents the single 'job_id' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the meaningful constraint that the job must be completed, which sharpens the parameter semantics beyond the schema's generic 'FARPY job id'.

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 names a specific action ('Return a ZIP download URL') and resource ('a completed job'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools by the download action and from any tool that would return bytes.

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 phrase 'for a completed job' gives a clear condition for when this tool should be used, and the warning that it never returns ZIP bytes helps prevent misuse. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the usage context is clear enough for selection.

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