pull_job_csv

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('download') but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, or error scenarios. While not misleading, it lacks depth beyond the basic behavior.

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 concise: two sentences with the first defining the action and the second providing usage guidance. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information.

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 presence of an output schema and high schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It includes usage guidance and sibling differentiation. However, it omits details about error handling or prerequisites, which are not critical but would enhance completeness.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the parameters; it only restates the job_id purpose.

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 'Download a job's results as a CSV file,' which is a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes from the sibling tool `pull_results` by specifying the CSV format, making the purpose clear and differentiated.

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?

The description explicitly provides use cases: 'Use when: You want the full job output as a CSV for offline analysis or export. Prefer this over `pull_results` when the consumer needs spreadsheet/CSV format.' This clearly guides the agent on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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