download_artifact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explains optional artifact_id falls back to latest, and the wait/poll parameters reveal propagation delays. It also states the return type. It does not cover permissions or error scenarios, but for a download tool this is reasonably transparent.

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?

Though detailed, every sentence adds value. It is structured with a short summary, a parameter list with descriptions, a return note, and three representative examples. The information density is high without redundancy.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, so the description must cover a lot. It does: explains all parameters, return values, and provides usage examples covering different artifact types and formats. This is a complete and self-contained description.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It does: every parameter is explained with allowed values, defaults, and interplay (e.g., 'For quiz/flashcards only' for output_format). Examples show valid parameter combinations, going well beyond the bare 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 and resource: 'Download any NotebookLM artifact to a file.' It clearly enumerates supported artifact types and notes it is a 'unified download tool replacing 9 separate download tools,' which distinguishes it from more narrowly scoped alternatives.

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?

Provides clear context: it is the unified replacement for separate download tools, and it gives format-specific parameters (e.g., output_format for quiz/flashcards, slide_deck_format for slide_deck). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like download_all_artifacts or export_artifact, so a brief 'when not to use' statement would make it stronger.

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