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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses specific behavior: the RESULT_NOT_READY error with HTTP 409 for unfinished tasks, and the requirement to use the same Authorization Bearer token for downloading. These are valuable context not captured in 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence provides distinct value (purpose, error behavior, auth requirement). No wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema present, so return values are covered by the schema. The description adds the necessary operational context (read-only, error condition, auth) making it complete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The schema already fully describes the only parameter (task_id) with a minimum and a clear 'Must be completed (has_result=true)' note. The description does not add additional meaning about the parameter, so with 100% schema coverage the baseline score 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get an absolute download URL for a task result'. It also notes the read-only nature, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_result_preview or get_direct_result_preview which likely return content rather than a URL.

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 description provides clear contextual guidance by noting the tool is read-only and specifying that it returns an error if the task is not finished. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the existence of sibling preview/status tools and the explicit 'download URL' focus make the intended use apparent.

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