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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses genuinely useful behavior: the URL is presigned, time-limited, and meant to be opened in a browser rather than fetched by the agent. It stops short of saying whether URL generation requires specific permissions or what happens if the document has no attached file.

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?

One tightly packed sentence with the key fact (presigned URL) front-loaded and the two operational caveats in parentheses. The trailing 'Archive.DocumentDownloadUrl' identifier is redundant noise but costs only a few tokens.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does: it explains that the result is a presigned URL, that it expires quickly, and how to use it. For a two-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, nothing essential to correct invocation 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%, and both parameters already document their provenance (domain_id from yuki_list_domains, document_id from a document list), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description reinforces the single-document scope but adds no format or behavioral detail about the parameters themselves.

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 resource and output: a presigned download URL for the file of one archive document. This clearly differentiates it from yuki_get_document (document metadata) and the list/search siblings, though it never names an alternative explicitly. The trailing 'Archive.DocumentDownloadUrl' is a bare API type reference that adds little.

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 implies the intended flow (obtain link, open in browser) and the schema hints the id comes from a document list, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus yuki_get_document or yuki_search_documents, and no stated prerequisite that a document_id must first be discovered. Usage must be inferred.

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