Download the tag -> original table of a pseudonymized document

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

Annotations already flag this as not read-only, open-world, and destructive, but the description adds crucial behavioral context: the table re-identifies the document, must be kept with the user, must never be sent alongside the redacted PDF, is written to a file on this machine, and must never be opened or read directly. These are non-obvious safety and handling constraints that materially change how an agent should behave.

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: it first says what is downloaded and in what format, then states the precondition, then the re-identification warning and next-step guidance. Each sentence earns its place.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explains the return artifact (a CSV file written to disk, one row per tag) and how to use it safely. It covers the precondition, the destructive/sensitive nature of the output, and the follow-up tool, making the definition complete enough for correct invocation.

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 both document_id and output_path are already well documented in the schema, including the default filename and no-overwrite behavior. The description does not add further parameter-specific semantics beyond mentioning that the file path should be passed to restore_names.

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 and resource ("Download the correspondence table of a document redacted with mode pseudonymize") and explains the contents (one CSV row per tag with placeholder, rename, category, original text). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like download_redacted and restore_names.

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?

It explicitly limits use to pseudonymized documents with status "redacted" and explains that redact-mode documents have no table. It also routes the agent to restore_names when names need to be put back, leaving little ambiguity.

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