beel_download_representation_document

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: the 5-minute URL expiration, the logic of serving the generated vs signed document, and a specific error condition (400 for not yet generated). This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't mention the 403 behavior (which is in the parameter schema).

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence states what it returns and its validity, the second addresses the document state logic, and the third covers the rejection case. The endpoint is a useful addition. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and lack of an output schema, the description explains the return (presigned URL) and the key error (400). It doesn't mention the 403 error, but that is captured in the parameter schema. The tool's behavior is well-covered for an agent 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 the parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add new meaning to the parameter—it only restates 'company (NIF)' which is already covered. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 states a specific action ('Returns a presigned URL') with the resource ('representation PDF of a company (NIF)') and a key constraint (valid for 5 minutes). It clearly differentiates this from sibling tools like beel_generate_representation (which generates the document) and beel_get_representation (which likely fetches representation data) by focusing on the download mechanism.

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 when to use the tool (to download the representation document) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It provides useful context about signed vs unsigned documents and a 400 error, but lacks direct comparison to sibling tools or a 'use this over X' statement.

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