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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds real behavioral context: revocation blocks downloads even with an existing session or key, the initial grant requires an owner session with origin and CSRF checks, and responses use private, no-store. It stops short of describing the returned payload or size limits.

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 clear purpose statement is front-loaded, but the remaining bulk is a dense wall of collection-sharing, publishing, and ownership semantics that are largely tangential to downloading an image. Much of this text does not earn its place in this tool's definition.

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 low-complexity read-only download with fully documented parameters and a complete annotation safety profile, the essentials are covered. But the description never explains what 'verified image' means or what the response contains, while devoting most of its length to off-topic sharing rules.

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 all four required IDs (organization_id, base_id, document_id, image_sha) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter formats or relationships, so the baseline 3 for full schema coverage applies.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource — 'Download a verified image from the document' — which is clear and actionable. However, it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical siblings read_base_image and public_read_base_image, so an agent must infer the 'team' scope from the name alone.

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 explains the team access model but never states when to choose this tool over read_base_image or public_read_base_image, nor any prerequisites beyond the schema. Usage is only implied by the tool name, not by any when/when-not guidance.

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