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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: open-access files are freely downloadable without authentication, and records can contain multiple heterogeneous files. No contradiction with 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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: verb+resource, return fields, multi-file context, and workflow/auth note. Slightly longer than strictly necessary, but there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

Complete for a 2-parameter list tool with an output schema and safety annotations: the description covers the prerequisite workflow, the returned fields, auth requirements, and typical file contents. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, with both record_id (including example and how to obtain it) and limit (default 50, max 100) fully documented. The description reinforces the record-ID workflow but adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List all downloadable files for a Zenodo record') and enumerates the return fields (filename, MIME type, size, checksum, direct download URL). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools zenodo.records.detail and zenodo.records.search, which an agent would otherwise confuse it with.

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?

Explicitly names the sibling tools zenodo.records.search and zenodo.records.detail and prescribes the workflow: find the record ID first, then call this tool to get the file manifest. The sequencing is unambiguous, though it lacks an explicit 'when not to use' exclusion.

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