Descargar el archivo crudo de un recurso

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), but the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the payload is base64-encoded and capped at 5 MB, and the text format does not return the content. Size limits and encoding expectations are exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler; the output nature (raw bytes, base64) is front-loaded, followed by the size constraint and the format directive. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary, and the description covers encoding, size cap, and format behavior. It could note whether the size cap means truncation or failure, but overall it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning for the format parameter beyond the schema's terse 'text summary or json structured result': it clarifies that text only confirms the download while json returns the structured payload. This is decision-relevant information for the agent.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Raw bytes of a CKAN resource'), names the encoding ('base64-encoded'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling preview_resource_data by scoping to 'formats the preview can't parse.' An agent can route between download and preview without opening either schema.

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 clear condition for choosing this tool over previewing ('formats the preview can't parse') and tells the agent to pass format="json" because text 'only confirms the download.' It does not state an explicit when-not case, so it falls short of a full 5.

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