Download links

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

Annotations only give readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds genuinely load-bearing behavior: links expire in 10 minutes, each result carries name, size and sha256, and no cookie is required (curl -L works). The expiry window and auth-free access are exactly the operational facts an agent needs and cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Three tight clauses separated by semicolons: what you get, how to narrow it, and where to go instead. The most decision-relevant fact (URLs, valid 10 minutes) is front-loaded and nothing is redundant with the schema.

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 carries the return-value burden itself and does so — listing name, size and sha256 plus the 10-minute validity. For a read-only link-generation tool with nested edition parameters, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing beyond the slug definition.

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 75%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns an increment by clarifying that zip:true is additive ("adds one link") rather than replacing the per-file links. The gap is the required slug parameter, which has no schema description and no explanation in the description — the agent must infer it from siblings like get_product.

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?

Opens with a precise verb+resource ("Download URLs for files the person owns") and immediately corrects a likely misconception — it returns URLs, not bytes. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from download_to_folder, which actually fetches files, so an agent can separate the two without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: "To put files into the project, download_to_folder does the download and the checksum for you" names the alternative and the condition that selects it. It also says how to narrow results (fileIds or an edition) and what zip:true adds, covering both when-to-use and how-to-scope.

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