o2_download

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds relevant context beyond that — progress reporting and size verification — but says nothing about what happens if the local path exists or how failures surface.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action and its side benefits are stated immediately. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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 two-required-parameter transfer tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description omits overwrite semantics, remote path format, error/partial-failure behavior, and sibling differentiation. It leaves material gaps an agent would need.

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%, so both required parameters ('local' and 'remote') rely entirely on their bare names. The description mentions a local path only obliquely ('ruta local nueva') and gives no format, path-style, or source-location detail for 'remote'.

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 Spanish verb 'Descarga' plus the target ('a una ruta local nueva') identifies the operation, so an agent can infer a remote-to-local file transfer. However, it never differentiates itself from the near-identical sibling cloud_download, and 'nueva' is ambiguous about overwrite behavior.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the cloud_download alternative or how o2_* differs from cloud_*. The agent must infer everything about selection from the tool name alone.

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