download_artifact

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

Without annotations, the description explains the download behavior, parameters, return value, and examples. It covers what the tool does but does not mention authorization needs, rate limits, or side effects, though the operation is read-only.

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 well-structured with Args, Returns, and Examples. It is comprehensive but slightly lengthy; some bullet points could be condensed without losing clarity.

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?

The description covers all parameters, return values, and provides examples. Minor gaps: does not explain what happens when artifact_id is omitted (uses latest) and lacks error handling details.

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 description compensates for 0% schema description coverage by providing detailed explanations of each parameter, including valid artifact types, optional fields, and format choices. Examples clarify usage.

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 clearly states the tool downloads any NotebookLM artifact to a file, listing all supported types. It is unified, replacing 9 separate tools, and distinct from siblings like podcast_download and export_artifact.

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 positions itself as the unified download tool, implying use for all listed artifact types. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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