download_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden and does so admirably. It discloses the side effect of saving to FERC_DOWNLOAD_DIR, states that file bytes are not returned, explains refused document types, and reveals how format choices change the saved artifact and result metadata.

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 detailed yet tightly organized, with each paragraph serving a distinct purpose: primary action, key caveats, format semantics, and result interpretation. No sentence feels redundant or filler.

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 tool's complexity, the description covers prerequisites, refusals, format variants, side effects, return-value semantics, and mismatch detection. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return fields, yet the description still adds useful interpretive context about size_matches_metadata and is_bundle.

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%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the format enum values, their defaults, and their behavioral differences, and it explains file_id's role via the list_files prerequisite. accession_number is not explicitly explained, though the tool name and context make it reasonably inferable.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Download a public eLibrary file to FERC_DOWNLOAD_DIR.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on a single file download and by describing the non-return of file bytes, making its role unambiguous.

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 gives explicit operational guidance: call list_files first to pick a file_id, and it warns that privileged/protected/CEII documents are refused. It does not explicitly compare against the sibling download_bundle, so the choice between this tool and that alternative is somewhat left to inference.

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