get_download_client

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral aspect: the returned object includes the full 'fields' array, which is the implementation-specific settings. But it doesn't mention response shape beyond that, potential errors, permissions, or whether the fields array is guaranteed to be populated. Adequate but minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and resource immediately, then appends a parenthetical that adds high-value detail about what 'fields' means. No wasted words.

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 simple get-by-id operation with one required parameter and no output schema, the description provides the key contextual detail: the response includes the full fields array. It does not cover error conditions or response format beyond that, but the tool's simplicity makes this acceptable. Slightly more context about the return value would make it fully complete.

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 100%: the single 'id' parameter is described as 'download client id'. The description adds no additional semantic meaning for the parameter, but none is needed given the schema already fully documents it. 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one download client'), and explicitly calls out the unique distinguishing feature: the full 'fields' array (implementation-specific settings). This clearly differentiates it from list_download_clients and get_download_client_schema without needing to inspect sibling names.

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 implies the use case: when you need a single client's detailed implementation-specific settings rather than just the list. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it (e.g., 'use list_download_clients to retrieve all clients'). The guidance is present but only implied.

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