get_download_url

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the basic behavior (getting a URL) and notes the URL is 'signed', but does not explain what signed means (e.g., expiration, permissions). It also lacks information on error cases or side effects. The description is not misleading, but there are clear gaps in explaining the signed URL behavior.

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 exactly two sentences, with the most important information first. Every word is purposeful, no redundancy or fluff. It is a model of concise, front-loaded description.

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 2-parameter get tool with an output schema, the description provides essential context: what it does, when to use it, and its relationship to restore_snapshot. It does not explain the signed URL's behavioral details or error handling, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, this is largely adequate. A small gap remains regarding signed URL semantics.

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 schema description provides 100% coverage for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description text reinforces that the tool fetches a 'specific restored file' but adds no substantial new meaning beyond the schema. The mention of restore operation context is useful but not a novel addition.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Get a signed download URL for a file') and clearly ties it to restore operations. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on the restore output, and the mention 'Companion to restore_snapshot' further clarifies its unique role.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'after a restore' and 'Companion to restore_snapshot', providing clear context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the sibling tool list (e.g., list_snapshot_files) implies alternatives for listing files. This is clear usage guidance.

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