Get printout

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

Annotations mark readOnlyHint=false, and the description explains why: setting save=true writes the file to the user's Downloads folder, disclosing the side effect and its trigger. It doesn't cover permission needs or how large PDFs are handled, but it adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotation flags.

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, the primary action front-loaded and the optional side effect second. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 three-parameter, fully documented read tool with no output schema, the description covers the action and the one behavioral fork that matters (save). It leaves the return shape implicit — whether the PDF content comes back inline or only as a file — which an agent would still need to discover.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, including that id comes from wilma_list_printouts and save writes to ~/Downloads/WilmAI. The description reinforces the save semantics but adds no format, syntax, or edge-case 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Fetch one printout PDF') and states the intent ('so you can read it'), which separates it from wilma_list_printouts. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it complements, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 implied rather than stated: the 'one printout' phrasing and the id parameter imply this runs after wilma_list_printouts, and the save=true clause hints at a save-vs-read fork. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative in the description itself.

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