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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add useful behavior beyond that: the link is signed, expires in ~15 minutes, is a zip, bundles install instructions, and costs nothing. It is silent on failure modes (unfinished order, unowned paid listing) and whether repeated calls mint a new link.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the payoff (signed download link) before the qualifying identifiers and extras. Every clause carries information, though the heavy em-dash and parenthetical construction makes it slightly harder to parse than a two-sentence split would be.

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 no output schema, the description covers what the caller gets (link, zip contents, expiry, cost) and how to select the source. Remaining gaps — error behavior for unfinished orders or ineligible listings — are modest but real for a tool where the primary failure is 'not ready yet'.

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%, so all three parameters are documented, and the description still adds real meaning: it frames order_id as 'the user's own' and listing_id as one the caller owns or that is free, an eligibility constraint absent from the schema. The language parameter is left entirely to the schema, but that is acceptable given full coverage.

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) and resource (wake word), and immediately specifies what the caller receives: a signed ~15-minute zip link plus install steps. It also enumerates the two access paths (own order_id vs. marketplace listing_id), which cleanly separates it from download_avatar and other siblings by resource type.

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?

Tells the agent which identifier to supply depending on ownership (own order vs. marketplace listing that is owned or free) and points at where those ids come from by naming create_wake_word, wake_word_status, and search_marketplace. It does not state explicit when-not conditions, e.g. what to do if the wake word is still processing or if a listing is paid and unowned.

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