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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the baseline bar is lower. The description goes beyond them usefully: it states the server never stores files (the call returns instructions, not data), describes the two response shapes (url vs post_url/get_url), and discloses the deleted-ID fallback returning 'deleted·alternatives'. That is real behavioral context an agent could not get from the 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?

The description is front-loaded with the key constraint ('서버가 파일을 대신 저장하진 않고') and repeats it in English for emphasis. The return-field enumeration is redundant given the output schema, and the trilingual layering adds length, so a 4 is warranted rather than a 5.

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 tool with a rich annotation set and the presence of an output schema, the definition covers the essential points: no file storage, return shape, examples, and the deleted-ID edge case. It lacks an explicit statement of the dataset_id format or of how this relates to the sibling lookup tools. Those are minor omissions, not blockers.

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 coverage is 0% and there is one parameter, so the description has to carry the meaning of dataset_id. It never defines the field explicitly, but the numeric example IDs ('15028200', '15000001') and the note that a deleted ID returns alternatives partially convey the expected format and lifecycle. This is helpful but short of a full explanation.

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 gives a specific verb and output shape: 'Get client-side download instructions (URL, params, steps)' and 'The server never stores files.' That distinguishes it from an actual file-fetch tool. It never names or contrasts the sibling tools (get_preview, show, record), so the differentiation is implicit at best.

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 can be inferred from the examples ('15028200 전체 JSON 받는 법') and from the statement that the server does not store files, which implies you call this when you need the download procedure, not the data. There is no explicit statement of when to use this instead of get_preview or show, and no stated preconditions.

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