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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so no safety contradiction exists. The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotation: the returned URL requires the same Authorization: Bearer API key, and the intended consumption pattern is a shell curl command rather than in-conversation byte fetching.

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?

Two sentences deliver the essential information with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the practical usage instruction follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential points: what is returned, authentication requirements, and how to use the result. It could mention response shape or URL expiration, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% for the single uuid parameter, and the schema already describes it as 'Document uuid'. The description does not add additional parameter-specific semantics beyond identifying the resource as a document PDF, so 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 action ('Get an authenticated download URL'), the resource ('a document's PDF'), and adds a useful scoping detail (audit certificate once complete). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_document by making explicit that it returns a URL for shell-based download, not document metadata or content.

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 gives clear practical guidance: download the PDF with curl in a shell and do not try to fetch the bytes into the conversation. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or exclusion conditions, but the context of use is strongly implied by the instructions on how to consume the result.

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