Download a finished job

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false but destructiveHint=false, and the description explains why: an existing file is never replaced unless overwrite is true. That non-obvious safety behavior is real added value beyond the annotations, though the description omits error behavior for unfinished jobs or missing folders.

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 tight sentences: the action and destination come first, the naming/overwrite constraint second. No filler or redundancy.

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 should say what the call returns (e.g., the resolved save path) and what happens if the job is not finished or the folder is unwritable. It covers the destination and overwrite semantics well but leaves those operational gaps.

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 67%, and the schema already documents folder defaults and overwrite numbering. The description restates the overwrite rule and adds the filename convention (job id + prompt), which is modest added meaning but not syntax details 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Save a finished job's image or video to a local folder'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces. However, it never contrasts itself with siblings like adsoptimiser_get_job (metadata) or adsoptimiser_list_jobs, leaving the boundary 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?

'a finished job's image or video' implies the job must be complete, which is useful pre-condition context. But there is no explicit routing guidance — nothing tells the agent to check adsoptimiser_get_job/adsoptimiser_status first, nor what to do for an unfinished job.

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