Get document download URL

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the call returns a presigned (temporary, time-limited) URL and requires the projects:read scope, which an agent needs to know before invoking. It stops short of stating URL expiry behaviour or error modes.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the permission requirement follows. Nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, and 'presigned download URL' conveys both shape and temporary nature. Minor gaps remain around URL lifetime, but the essential contract for calling the tool correctly is present.

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 50% — sourcePid is documented as a psrc_* identifier while projectPid has no description. The description supplies no parameter-level detail of its own, so the undocumented projectPid is left to inference. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema carries the partial burden.

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 names a specific verb and resource — 'Get a presigned download URL for an uploaded document source' — which is precise enough to distinguish it from read-oriented siblings like air_get_artifact_text and air_list_documents. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the resource scope ('uploaded document source') does the routing work.

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 states a permission prerequisite ('Requires projects:read') but offers no guidance on when to choose this tool versus alternatives such as air_get_artifact_text or air_list_documents. Usage is implied by the resource name rather than stated.

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