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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations: the URLs are temporary and private, and they should only be shared with the user and not passed to other tools without permission. No contradiction with 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 short sentences, both purposeful. The main function is front-loaded, and the security caveat is a necessary addition. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 one-parameter, read-only retrieval tool, the description is largely sufficient: it states the output type (temporary private URLs), the precondition (successful owned translation), and an important sharing restriction. There is no output schema, so the description carries some burden for return semantics, but the concept is clear enough; minor details like exact URL format or expiration behavior are not critical for 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?

There is only one parameter, job_id, and the schema provides its type and length constraints. The description implicitly links the parameter to a 'successful owned translation' but does not explicitly explain that job_id is the identifier of that translation or how to obtain it. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description only partially compensates.

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 clearly states the action ('Get temporary private download URLs') and the resource ('a successful owned translation'), so an agent knows what the tool returns. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_translation, though the focus on download URLs makes the distinction reasonably clear.

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 successful owned translation' implies when this tool is appropriate, and the privacy instruction gives handling guidance. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over get_translation or list_files, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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