download_artifact

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

No annotations provided, but the description covers parameters, defaults, and return value. It mentions optional artifact ID uses latest, but does not address potential issues like large file sizes or auth failures.

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?

Well-structured with Args, Returns, and Example sections. Slightly longer due to parameter enumeration, but each sentence adds value. Could be trimmed slightly, but overall efficient.

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 the moderate complexity (6 params, 3 required) and presence of an output schema (not detailed but acknowledged), the description covers everything needed: all parameters, return dict, and multiple usage examples.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains all 6 parameters, including valid values for artifact_type, output_format, and slide_deck_format, with examples for each.

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 'Download any NotebookLM artifact to a file' and lists all artifact types. It distinguishes from siblings by declaring itself as the unified replacement for 9 separate download tools.

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 explicitly states it replaces 9 separate download tools, implying universal use for downloads. It provides examples, but could be more explicit about when not to use it (e.g., if artifact_id is unknown).

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