Download the agent content an evaluation run tested

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: it states the only side effect ('writes only the zip file; the environment is not touched') and adds a reliability caveat ('not yet verified against a live tenant'). It omits auth prerequisites and error behavior for a missing/unscored run, keeping it shy of 5.

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-loads purpose via the quoted question, then gives side effects and the caveat compactly. Two long sentences carry several facts; slightly dense but each clause earns its place.

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 7-param, 1-required download tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, side effects, and next step adequately; the zip is the return value, so no output explanation is needed. Auth/error semantics remain the only unaddressed area.

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 all seven parameters are already documented in the schema; the description adds only the notion that outputPath receives a zip. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a precise resource (the agent content snapshot an evaluation run was scored against), with the run-scoping target made explicit. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like cs_compare_snapshots and cs_list_evaluation_runs, which operate on snapshots/runs rather than downloading one.

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?

Frames the use case sharply ('what exactly did that evaluation run test?') and points to the follow-up (cs_compare_snapshots or a file diff), giving clear context for when to reach for it. It does not state exclusions or alternatives (e.g., cs_get_evaluation_run for metadata only), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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