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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the server does not proxy or store the file, it returns instructions (URL/params/steps) for the client to execute, and it enumerates the response shapes (access_kind, url vs post_url/get_url, params, version_keys, message, page_url). This prevents the classic mistake of assuming the call itself downloads data.

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 key claim ('server never stores files') and the core verb+resource are front-loaded, and the bilingual redundancy is mostly justified for a user-facing help tool. The return-field enumeration is somewhat expendable given an output schema exists, but the description is not bloated.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral surprise (no server-side storage, instructions-only response) and shows realistic triggers. The only real gap is that the required dataset_id argument is never explained, which is the one thing an agent cannot infer for certain.

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 exactly one parameter (dataset_id) and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden of explaining it. It never mentions dataset_id, its format, or where to obtain it; the numeric IDs appear only inside example user queries, which is indirect at best. The description instead spends its detail on return fields, which the output schema already covers.

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 English sentence states a specific verb+resource: 'Get client-side download instructions (URL, params, steps)'. It also pre-empts the most likely misreading by saying 'The server never stores files', which separates it from an actual file-fetch tool. No sibling tool is named, but none of the listed siblings (fields, get_preview, record, search, show) overlap in function.

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 through two sample queries ('15028200 전체 JSON 받는 법', '15000001 원본 파일 다운로드 주소'), which show the agent when such a request arises. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no condition that selects this over get_preview or show, and no exclusions.

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