list_downloads

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what the call returns (files with URLs and descriptions) which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about read-only semantics, authentication, rate limits, or the size of the listing. Adequate but leaves clear gaps for an annotation-free tool.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the follow-up sentence adds real detail about returned content. The trailing numpydoc 'Returns' block restates what the output schema already declares, which is minor redundancy but not wasteful enough to hurt much.

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 no-argument listing tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential purpose and return content. It identifies the database version (eggNOG 7), which is useful context an agent would otherwise lack.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. No parameter-related misinformation is present.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List downloadable data files from the eggNOG 7 database') and enumerates the content categories (protein sequences, OG info, trees, taxonomic info). It is unambiguous and does not overlap any sibling, though it never explicitly names a sibling to differentiate against.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when it needs bulk-download URLs rather than a single record lookup. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when NOT to use it, and no reference to alternatives like get_database_stats.

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