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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior the annotations do not: silent truncation at 40000 characters with a truncated: true flag, plus the escape hatch via request_export. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but those are minor here.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the truncation caveat and the alternative. Every sentence carries information an agent needs to call the tool correctly.

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 read-only download tool with 9 params all described in the schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors: scope, truncation, file/path distinction, and the full-copy alternative. The unmentioned optional params (branch, html_encoding, filters) are fully documented in the schema, so the remaining gap is minor.

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%, giving a baseline of 3, but the description adds real value by disambiguating file_name from path ("the folder goes in `path`"), which resolves a subtle interplay the schema only partly covers. No format detail on the remaining optional filters is added, but the schema handles those.

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 (Download), resource (one resource file), and scope (as text, in one language), and names the endpoint. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_resources and request_export without opening any 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?

Routes the agent to request_export when a full, untruncated copy is needed, and clarifies that file_name comes from list_resources with the folder going in path. Lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer list_resources or upload_resource_file, but the primary alternative and its condition are stated.

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