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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds genuinely useful context that the result is a URL rather than file bytes, but says nothing about link expiry, permission requirements, or whether the signed version may be absent – the kind of traits that matter for a signed-document download.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the link-vs-bytes caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by stating the return is a link, not bytes, which is the key thing an agent must know. It is complete for a simple two-parameter read, though link validity/lifetime is left unaddressed.

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%, including a clear enum description for 'version', so the schema already carries the parameter burden. The description only references the endpoint path and adds no format or default semantics beyond what the schema states. 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 ('Get a download URL for a document's PDF') and immediately distinguishes the output type from the sibling get_document by noting it 'Returns a link, not the file bytes.' An agent can tell this apart from a metadata-fetch tool without opening either schema.

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 conveys what the tool yields but never states when to prefer it over alternatives such as get_document or list_document_attachments, nor any prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the word 'download'.

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