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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the bar is lower. The description still adds substantive behavior beyond them: base64 return encoding, a 10 MiB size ceiling, and a security constraint that arbitrary paths are rejected.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and the most consequential constraint (saved ID only) front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail needn't be spelled out, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, the role of locationId and whether it must be consistent with the document's location is unaddressed, which is agent-relevant for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden here. It adds real meaning for docId (a saved ID, explicitly not a filesystem path) but never mentions locationId or its relationship to docId, leaving half the required parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 ('Download a site document by its saved ID'), which clearly separates it from list_location_documents. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the other download/export siblings (download_field_attachment, download_resource), leaving the agent to infer from the resource name.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'by its saved ID' suggests the ID must come from a listing call first, and the 'never accepts arbitrary paths' line implicitly excludes path-based lookups. No explicit when-to-use or how-this-differs-from-alternatives guidance is given.

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