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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: the returned URL is presigned and expires in a few minutes, and it supports batched execution via file_ids. It does not contradict any annotations and provides context about the output format and expiration.

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 short sentences: the first states the core function and expiration, the second introduces bulk support. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, contains no filler, and fully earns its place. Perfectly concise.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (single action, read-only) and the presence of good annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description covers the key aspects: it generates a URL, the URL expires, and bulk mode exists. However, it lacks detail on the exact format of the response (e.g., whether it returns a single URL or a list for bulk) and does not explain the 'account' parameter. Since there is no output schema, some gaps remain, but the essentials are covered.

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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It only explains the file_ids parameter for bulk execution, omitting the meaning of 'account' and the relationship between file_id (required) and file_ids (optional). This leaves ambiguity about whether file_id is needed when file_ids is used, and what the response looks like. The description adds minimal value over the parameter names.

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 purpose: generating a presigned GET URL for a file. The verb 'gera' (generates) and the resource 'URL presigned de download' are specific, and the mention of bulk support adds a distinctive feature that separates it from sibling tools like crm_get_file (direct file content) and crm_delete_file.

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 some context (URL expires in minutes) but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or use cases like sharing vs. direct retrieval, nor does it reference sibling tools. The bulk support hint gives a conditional use case but lacks a clear comparison with other file-related tools.

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