Get Campaign File Download

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive. The description adds real value with 'short-lived' and 'authorized', signaling expiration and permission checks. However it never says what the returned download actually is (URL? token? expiry window?) or whether it can be reused, which matters for a link-minting tool.

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?

One tightly written sentence with the key qualifier ('short-lived authorized') front-loaded. It is efficient but arguably under-sized given three undocumented required parameters.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description doesn't explain what the agent receives back (a URL, a token, an expiry) or how long 'short-lived' is. Combined with 0% parameter documentation across three required params, an agent cannot reliably construct the call or interpret the result from this description alone.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does: 'contract or selected draft/final file' loosely maps to the file oneOf discriminator. The two required integer parameters (campaign_id, campaign_creator_id) and their relationship are entirely undocumented, and the required file_id for draft/final is never mentioned.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Return a short-lived authorized download') and names the file variants (contract, draft/final), which is genuinely informative. It doesn't differentiate itself from nearby file tools like list_campaign_creator_files or get_message_attachment_download, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Use is implied — call it when you need a download for a campaign contract or a selected draft/final file. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. that the file must already exist or that campaign_creator_id must belong to the campaign), and no naming of alternatives.

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