download_artifact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic operation (download to file) without mentioning side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens with missing IDs. For a download tool, this is minimal.

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 brief (2 sentences plus a list) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The list of artifact types is somewhat redundant with the schema, but overall it's efficient with no fluff.

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?

Given the 6 parameters, 3 required, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. It could mention default behaviors or error cases, but it is adequate for a download tool with good schema support.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description repeats artifact types but adds no new semantics or context beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it downloads any NotebookLM artifact to a file, lists all supported types, and positions itself as the unified replacement for 9 separate tools. This specificity distinguishes it from siblings like export_artifact.

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 it is the go-to download tool ('Unified download tool replacing 9 separate download tools'), but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. No mention of conditions or prerequisites.

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