Get your finished document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | Completed job ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | No | ||
| size_bytes | No | ||
| download_url | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / job_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Completed job ID"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "download_url": {
+ "format": "uri",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "filename": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "size_bytes": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "download_url"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds only the 'finished' condition, which is already reflected in the schema's 'Completed job ID' parameter description. No additional behavioral context is provided.
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 a single, short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It earns its place, though its brevity contributes to vagueness rather than precise clarity.
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?
This is a low-complexity tool: one required parameter, full schema coverage, and an output schema. The description and structured data cover the essentials for calling it correctly, though a bit more detail about the download behavior or completion requirement would make it more complete.
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%, and the only parameter job_id is documented as 'Completed job ID.' The description does not add further parameter guidance, but the schema fully covers the meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 conveys that the tool retrieves a finished document, matching the download_pdf name. However, it is vague about the PDF format, the job_id relationship, and does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like get_research_deck or get_status.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use download_pdf versus alternatives such as get_status or generate_deck. The phrase 'finished document' implies it should be used after completion, but this is not explicit and no exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.