air_get_document_download_url

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, indicating safe, read-only operation. The description adds the specific permission requirement (projects:read), which is valuable beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 extremely concise: one sentence stating purpose and a second sentence for permission requirement. It is front-loaded with the key action and avoids superfluous details.

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 tool is simple (2 required params, no output schema). The description explains purpose and permission but does not mention what the return value looks like (e.g., a URL, its format, expiration). Given no output schema, describing the return would improve completeness.

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?

With 50% schema description coverage (sourcePid described, projectPid not), the description adds no extra parameter information. It mentions 'document source' but does not explain projectPid or provide guidance on valid values. The description should compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 gets a presigned download URL for an uploaded document source, using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like air_list_documents (list) and air_upload_document_init (upload) by focusing on URL retrieval.

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 mentions the required permission (projects:read) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., air_list_documents for metadata). It implies usage when a download URL is needed, but lacks when-not or exclusion hints.

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