Download links

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds substantively beyond them: URLs are signed and key-free, support HTTP Range for resumable downloads, expire after 24 hours, and resolving someone else's link consumes one download of it. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Front-loaded with the user-intent question, then the mechanics. Slightly chatty in the opening clause, but every sentence carries information (URL forms, output shape, expiry, Range support, download accounting).

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 compensates by describing the return value precisely: one signed URL per file, each with its folder path, plus a ZIP. Combined with the parameter docs, expiry, and auth-free access, an agent has everything needed to call and use the result.

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 all four parameters with the same URL-format detail. The description's mention of 'one of your own transfers or collections' mirrors what the schema says (transferId/collectionId when there is no link). Baseline 3 applies – it adds little 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?

The description states a specific verb (turn a link/transfer/collection into signed download URLs) and resource, and frames it around the agent's question ('what is in this link someone sent me?'). It is clearly distinguishable from mutating siblings like create_transfer and from pure metadata readers like get_transfer.

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 states when to use it (a shared Yungle link, or one of your own transfers/collections) and gives the concrete input forms. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling or an exclusion, so it stops short of the top score, but the trigger conditions are clear.

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