Download Report

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so that burden is lifted. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral detail: the response is a binary payload decoded as UTF-8 when possible, which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

A single short sentence with no bloat, and the behavioral caveat is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the endpoint string itself carries little value to an agent.

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?

For a binary-download tool with no output schema, the description is thin: it does not explain the returned content's format, size, or how report_class/report_key drive the payload. The one UTF-8 note helps but leaves the agent underinformed.

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 all three parameters (domain, report_key, report_class with its enum) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 mostly restates the tool name and title by mapping to the raw endpoint `POST /v1/reports/download`. It implies a download action but does not state in prose what resource is being downloaded or how it differs from siblings like fortimail.reports.generate.* or fortimail.logs.download.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no precondition (e.g., that a report must first be generated via fortimail.reports.generate.* or keyed from fortimail.reports.list), and no mention of alternatives. The agent is left to infer the entire workflow.

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