download_document

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. The description adds the base64 return format, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose details like whether 'original' affects the response, file size limits, or whether the download is a direct binary vs. wrapped in JSON. With annotations covering the read-only nature, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It earns its place by adding the base64 return detail. It could be slightly more informative about parameters, but it is not bloated.

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 download tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain the 'original' parameter, the response envelope, or how this differs from get_document_content/download_documents_bulk. An agent would need to inspect the schema or guess to use 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 0%, so the description must compensate for the two parameters. It only explains 'id' implicitly ('by ID') and says nothing about 'original'. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, leaving the 'original' parameter's purpose and effect undocumented.

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 verb ('Download') and resource ('a document file by ID'), and clarifies the return format ('base64-encoded resource'). It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like get_document_content or get_document_preview, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 usage: call it when you need the raw document file as base64. It does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like get_document_content, get_document_preview, or download_documents_bulk, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but not fully elaborated.

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