download_scan

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds value beyond them: the caveat that selection does not verify act identity, and the critical detail that files come back as resource_uri/provenance_uri rather than inline base64. That return mechanism is non-obvious and materially changes how an agent consumes the result.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and constraint, with no filler. The telegraphic style is efficient but borders on terse, leaving a little interpretation to the reader.

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 usefully explains the resource_uri/provenance_uri return path, and it establishes the selection constraint. But the required sequence parameter is never really explained, and with openWorldHint=true there is no note on access or permission prerequisites, leaving gaps for a network-fetching tool.

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 carries the burden. It explains the mutual exclusivity of record_id/source_url ('exactly one'), and 'one-based' loosely clarifies the required sequence parameter. Neither parameter's format is fully pinned down, so compensation is only partial.

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 (download) and resource (scan) and adds meaningful qualifiers: one-based selection, SHA256 verification, and local provenance. However, it does not distinguish this scan-download tool from siblings like download_act or resolve_act_scan, so an agent must infer the split.

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 gives a hard constraint ('Provide exactly one record_id/source_url') that shapes invocation, and 'explicitly selected' hints a prior resolution step. But it names no alternatives and offers no when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to download_act or resolve_act_scan.

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