get_download_urls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It details the return structure but does not explicitly state behavioral traits like safety (read-only), side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The return description hints at no destructive behavior, but this is not confirmed.

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 well-structured with sections (usage tips, returns). It is informative and avoids unnecessary fluff, though the returns section repeats information that may be in the output schema. Slightly more concise could be achieved.

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 no annotations and the presence of output schema, the description covers inputs, usage, and outputs well. It mentions prerequisite (call after search) and provides detailed return structure. Lacks error handling details and authentication info, but is fairly 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning to parameters beyond the schema, though the return section mentions include_md5 affecting checksums. Overall, it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool gets FTP download URLs for sequencing data files in a study. It specifies the verb (get), resource (FTP download URLs), and scope (study). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings by mentioning usage after search_rna_studies and passing to generate_download_script.

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 explicitly says 'Call after search_rna_studies()' and mentions alternatives: 'can be used with wget/curl or passed to generate_download_script()'. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use it, the guidance is clear and contextual.

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