get_download_url

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it generates a temporary URL with a 5-minute validity period, and specifies it's for 'signed documents from a completed envelope', implying prerequisites. It lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, or error cases, but covers essential operational context.

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, dense sentence with zero waste: it front-loads the core purpose, includes validity duration, and specifies the resource context. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 no output schema, the description provides good context for a simple retrieval tool: it clarifies the tool's purpose, behavioral constraints (temporary URL, envelope completion), and usage context. It could improve by mentioning authentication or response format, but it's largely complete for its complexity.

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 the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'envelopeId' is for a completed envelope, which is minimal value. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Get a temporary download URL') and target resource ('signed documents from a completed envelope'), with the temporal constraint 'valid 5 min' adding precision. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_envelope' (metadata) or 'list_documents' (listing) by focusing on download access for completed envelopes.

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 implicitly indicates usage context by specifying 'for signed documents from a completed envelope', suggesting it should be used after envelope completion. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for pending envelopes) or name alternatives like 'list_documents' for document details without downloads, leaving some guidance gaps.

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