accelo_download_resource_url

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the tool returns only a URL path and that fetching the file itself requires Bearer-token authentication — meaningful behavioral context. It stops short of stating whether the URL is signed/expiring, what permissions are needed to obtain it, or what happens for an invalid id.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the return value and the auth caveat, then the Args block. It is tight and free of filler; the 'Args: id: Resource ID' line is slightly redundant but harmless.

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 1-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return value, and the auth prerequisite needed to actually use the result. It omits a few details (URL lifetime, id source) but is adequate for correct invocation.

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 0% and there is one required parameter, so the description does some work by labeling it 'Resource ID'. That is minimally better than the bare 'id' title but adds no format, type, or source detail (e.g., where the id comes from, valid ranges).

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 gives a specific verb+resource: 'Get the download URL for a resource', and the second sentence clarifies it returns a URL path rather than the file itself. It is clear on its own, though it never names or contrasts with the closely related siblings accelo_get_resource / accelo_list_resources, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement or comparison against alternatives such as accelo_get_resource. The only usage-relevant information is the incidental note that the actual download requires a Bearer token, which is a constraint rather than routing guidance.

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