Download an ECFS document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key traits: the headless Chrome dependency ('Google Chrome must be installed'), the per-document latency, and the disk-write side effect. It omits auth requirements and overwrite behavior for existing files, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does before the identifying details and the performance caveat. No wasted text.

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 download tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers return value ('saved file path'), latency, and the environment prerequisite. Missing auth/permission context is the only notable gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description restates the {n} positional mapping and the output_dir default, adding framing but no syntax beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Download one document ... from an ECFS filing'), its side effect (save to disk), and its return ('the saved file path'). This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling search/get tools.

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?

Implies usage context by explaining how to identify a document and when to set output_dir ('only set this when the user asks for a specific place'), but never states when to use this versus alternatives like ecfs_get_download_plan or ecfs_raw_request. Adequate but with a clear routing gap.

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