download_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuinely non-obvious behavior: the tool does not return file bytes but a paperless:// resource URI that must then be read. It says nothing about permissions, file size, or error behavior, so it is only partially transparent for a no-annotation 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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the most important information (the URI indirection) is placed immediately after the core action. Nothing needs trimming.

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 does the right thing by explaining the return shape (a resource URI), which covers the biggest gap. But the undocumented 'original' parameter and the absence of any guidance about when to use this over sibling content-retrieval tools leave it short of complete.

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 0% and there are 2 parameters. The description accounts for 'id' implicitly ('by ID') but adds no format or constraint detail, and completely ignores the 'original' boolean, leaving an agent unable to tell what it does from either schema or description.

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?

States a specific verb ('Download') and resource ('a document file by ID'), which is clear enough to separate it from list/query siblings. However, it never distinguishes itself from the closely related get_document_content or get_document_thumbnail, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 sentence 'read the resource to fetch the file content' implies the two-step download flow, which is useful implied guidance. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus get_document_content or get_document_thumbnail, and no statement of prerequisites.

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