nass_download_original_audio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully clarifies that the file lands on the MCP host and that the returned path is server-local, which resolves the main ambiguity for a download tool. It omits permissions, size/duration limits for 'synchronous' calls, and error behavior for non-public or unsupported videos.

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 no filler, and the most decision-relevant clauses (caption-free, synchronous, server-local path) are front-loaded. The unusual line breaks read as artifacts rather than reasoning, but content-wise it is tight.

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 one-parameter download tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential output semantics (server-local file path) but leaves the input format, limits on synchronous downloads, and failure modes unaddressed. It is adequate but not complete given the absence of both annotations and schema descriptions.

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% and the description adds no information about the single video_url parameter's expected format or accepted URL shapes. Even though the parameter is fairly self-evident, the description fails to compensate for the complete absence of schema documentation.

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 (obtain) and resource (audio media file), and distinguishes itself from caption/transcript tools with 'without using any captions.' It stops short of naming its closest sibling (nass_start_audio_download), so an agent must infer the sync-vs-async routing from the word 'synchronous' rather than an explicit comparison.

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?

'A synchronous download is appropriate for relatively short public videos' gives a concrete when-to-use condition and implicitly signals that longer jobs belong to the async sibling. It never names that alternative tool or states exclusions (e.g., private videos), so guidance is clear but incomplete.

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