actions_file_retrieval_details

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

The description explains the post-processing steps (download and unzip) and includes a curl example and license requirement. As there are no annotations, it carries the full burden and does so effectively, though it does not state safety characteristics like read-only or idempotency.

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 quite long but well-structured with headers, code blocks, and a numbered process. It contains practical details like the exact curl command, unzip step, and license, but a few phrases restate the workflow (e.g., 'Download the file' appears in both text and code comment).

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description does a solid job by specifying the required endpoint, request example, license, and the response's key action (contains a file hash to download). It does not document error responses or exact output JSON, but the core workflow is clearly covered.

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 already provides a 100% description coverage for the single parameter, group_action_id. The description adds an example body and clarifies the parameter's provenance ('according to the action ID'), but that information is largely redundant with the schema description.

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 function: 'View the API required to call in order to download the file retrieved by the Retrieve File API request according to the action ID.' It identifies a specific resource (file retrieval details) and the key input (action ID). It does not explicitly compare to sibling tools, but the context of the Retrieve File workflow makes it distinguishable.

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 usage after a Retrieve File API request, providing the required license and a concrete example request body. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, but the intended context is clear from the description.

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