download_document

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains session cookie reuse, browser UA spoofing, optional referer riding, Content-Disposition naming, default save location, env var override, return values, and a fallback through the reader. This is exceptionally transparent.

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 dense yet every sentence earns its place by conveying concrete operational details—no filler or repetition. It front-loads the core action, then layers conditional/advanced guidance in a logical order.

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 tool's complexity (session auth, hotlink protection, file naming, save paths), the description covers nearly all operational needs: how/why to use, environment overrides, return values, and failure fallback. The only notable omission is the undocumented `private` parameter, which prevents a perfect score.

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% for parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It effectively explains referer, dest_dir, and the MDBROWSE_DOWNLOADS env var override, but it does not clarify the `private` boolean and only indirectly implies `url` as the link target. This leaves a meaningful gap in a 4-parameter schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Download a linked file directly to disk,' listing PDFs, spec sheets, datasets, images, and archives. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like fetch_page (inline reading) and download_video (media-specific), making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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?

Explicit use-case guidance is provided: 'Use this when a page LINKS a document worth keeping rather than reading inline,' with a concrete example and alternative (fetch_page/page_links). It also explains when to pass referer and what to do if a WAF tarpits the direct fetch, giving clear situational context.

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