Download a document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral fact that the result is a file written locally rather than inline data, but says nothing about where the file lands, its format/extension, whether it overwrites, or any auth/rate constraints.

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 with no filler; the verb and outcome appear immediately. It is efficient, though the brevity leaves the gaps noted in other dimensions unaddressed.

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?

With two required params, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the returned artifact — yet it only says 'local file' without path, filename convention, or format. An agent knows what the tool does but not what it gets back.

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 only 50% (the kind enum has no description), and the description compensates by enumerating the four document classes that map onto the enum values (cash_register_report, cash_document, invoice_pdf, consent_pdf). The id parameter gets no added meaning beyond the schema's own description, so it is not a 5.

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 names a specific verb (saves as a local file) and the concrete resource classes (cash register report, cash document, invoice, consent), which is enough to separate it from retrieval siblings like invoice, cash_register, and consents_signed that return data rather than a file. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 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?

The phrase 'as a local file' implies the use case (persist a document to disk rather than read its metadata), so usage is inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the adjacent tools (invoice, cash_register, consent_forms) that return the same underlying records in JSON form.

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