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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses key behaviors: it always returns document_page_url, conditionally returns download_url based on plan, the link is personal and bound to the key owner, and quota is charged at download time. It also explains the null fallback with download_note and gives explicit fetch instructions, demonstrating strong transparency.

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?

The description is front-loaded with a clear summary sentence and then organized into logical paragraphs covering the page URL and download URL behaviors. While it is relatively long, every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy, making it appropriately concise for the complexity.

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?

Despite the tool's complexity (conditional links, authentication, quota), the description covers all essential aspects: primary return value, conditional direct download link, usage instructions, and security constraints. Even though an output schema exists, the description provides additional necessary context for correct invocation and interpretation.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with only one parameter, file_uid, which already has a descriptive schema comment ('DocumentFile UID (from list_document_files)'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get links for a document file: page URL for everyone, direct download URL when the plan allows it.' This uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('document file'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_document by focusing on download links.

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 provides clear context on when this tool is appropriate (when needing download links for a document file), and explains the two possible outcomes. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like get_document or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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