download_archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It mentions downloading to a local file path but does not disclose permissions needed, file size limits, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the operation is idempotent. The description is functional but misses important operational context for a file-download tool.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, contents, and target resource without any redundant information. It is front-loaded with the core action and appropriately sized for its complexity.

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 tool's moderate complexity (file download with two parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, or output specifics. For a download operation with no structured safety hints, more context would be beneficial.

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 fully documents both parameters (envelope_id as UUID, output_path as local file path). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or path requirements, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Download a ZIP archive') and resource ('for a completed envelope'), with explicit details on contents ('signed PDF, audit certificate, and all related documents'). It distinguishes from siblings like download_certificate or download_signed by specifying the comprehensive ZIP format and full document set.

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 description implies usage context by specifying 'for a completed envelope', suggesting it should only be used after envelope completion. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., for pending envelopes) or name alternatives like download_signed for individual documents, leaving some ambiguity.

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