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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the link is time-limited, only one stored original is served, a single request is made, and the file comes from NextBid's object store rather than through the API. It does not mention auth requirements or what happens on expiry/invalid sha.

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?

Two dense sentences with the core capability front-loaded followed by the delivery mechanism and constraint; no filler clauses.

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 2-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what the return value is (a link), its lifetime, and where the bytes come from. Remaining gaps (auth, failure modes, expiry duration) are minor but real.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for sha256 by tying it to list_documents with stored=true — real meaning beyond the regex pattern. nb_id is only implied via 'of an opportunity', so it is not fully documented.

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?

Specific verb+resource: returns a time-limited download link for one stored original document. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_document_text (text extraction) and list_documents (enumerating), though it never names them.

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?

It gives a prerequisite ('sha256 from list_documents, where stored is true'), which implies when this tool is applicable. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_document_text or what to do if the document is not stored, leaving routing to inference.

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