download_results

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses the archive contents (GenBank files, HTML reports, JSON data) and the completed-job prerequisite, but says nothing about authentication, overwrite behavior, size/rate limits, or failure modes for an invalid job_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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope; the second sentence earns its place by telling the agent what the downloaded artifact actually contains.

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 correctly explains the return artifact (a ZIP of analysis results), and the required params are schema-covered. Minor gaps remain around preconditions and error handling, but an agent has enough to call it 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 all three parameters are already documented. The description reinforces that output_path is a local save location and what the payload contains, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb (Download), resource (antiSMASH results archive ZIP), and scope (completed job), and the phrase 'save it to a local path' distinguishes it from siblings like get_job_results that presumably return data inline. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead, but the action is 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 implies a precondition ('for a completed job') and hints that check_job_status/wait_for_job should precede it, but never states when to prefer this over get_job_results or get_job_details, nor what to do if the job is still running.

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