ilovevideoeditor_get_download_url

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses two key behavioral traits: the URL is 'fresh signed' (time-limited) and the job must be 'completed'. However, it does not mention what happens if the job is incomplete or expired, nor any auth requirements or rate limits. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

One concise sentence, front-loaded with the action, no filler. Every word contributes meaning ('fresh', 'signed', 'completed').

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 one-parameter read-only getter with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells the user what to provide (implicitly via schema) and what they'll receive (a download URL). It lacks error-condition details, but the simplicity of the operation makes this acceptable. A 5 would require explicit mention of timeout or error behavior, which is not essential here.

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 jobId as 'Completed render job ID'. The description repeats 'completed render job' but adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('signed download URL') and specifies the scope ('for a completed render job'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_render_status (status vs URL) and render_template (render vs download).

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 phrase 'for a completed render job' provides clear context for when to use this tool—after a render is finished. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the sibling names indicate distinct purposes, and the wording implies this is a final step, not a status check. No exclusions are given, but the context is clear enough for a simple getter.

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