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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial non-obvious behaviour: the URL is unauthenticated, expires in about a day, file contents do not pass through the server, each asset read consumes one API request against quota, and download permission is required per asset. It also enumerates response buckets (no_file, not_found, failed) which an agent needs to interpret outcomes.

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?

Dense but well ordered: the core purpose comes first, then edge-case handling, then permissions and quota limits. Every sentence carries distinct operational information with no filler or repetition of the title.

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 compensates fully by explaining the returned URL properties (unauthenticated, ~1-day expiry) and the failure/skip categories an agent will encounter. Permission, quota and batch-size constraints are all covered, leaving nothing essential unstated.

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 parameters are already documented, including the max-25 constraint and the workspace-resolution rule for `organization`. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies; its token-level semantics (link assets returning a null size) describe results rather than inputs.

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 ('Get a signed URL of the ORIGINAL file of one or more assets') and immediately disambiguates from near neighbours by contrasting the original bytes with `display_url`, previews and image permalinks. An agent can distinguish it from get_asset_previews, get_asset_permalinks, and get_asset without opening a schema.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('hand a full-quality video, PDF, font or source image to another system, or fetch it yourself') and an explicit exclusion plus alternative: if the URL must keep working longer, use `add_asset_permalinks` instead. The requirement of download permission and the 25-asset limit are also stated up front.

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