get-download-url

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

The description adds significant behavioral details beyond the annotations: the URL is short-lived and pre-authenticated, does not require an Authorization header, and streams bytes directly (no base64 encoding). It also lists unsupported scenarios. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which are consistent with the description. No contradiction.

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 a single paragraph of about 6-7 sentences, well-structured with a clear flow: purpose, benefit, preference guidance, exceptions, and return info. It is informative but could be slightly more concise; however, it earns its sentences.

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 has one parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, how to use it, when to use alternatives, unsupported types, and the return format. It addresses edge cases and provides complete guidance for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add much beyond what the schema already provides for the 'target' parameter. The schema itself includes a detailed explanation with examples, so the description's added value is minimal. Hence, score 3.

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 explicitly states the tool resolves a short-lived, pre-authenticated download URL for Microsoft Graph binary content (drive/SharePoint file content). It uses a specific verb 'Resolve' and clearly identifies the resource. The description also distinguishes this tool from download-bytes, making its purpose 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 provides explicit guidance: 'Prefer this over download-bytes for any file above a few KB or any bulk download.' It also states when NOT to use it (mail file attachments and meeting recordings) and directs users to use download-bytes for those cases. This clear differentiation satisfies the dimension.

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