download_export_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the key side effect: the tool writes a downloaded file to a local path on the MCP host. However, it does not mention whether an existing file is overwritten, whether directories are created, what happens if the output_path is omitted, or what kind of response is returned.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the action, target resource, and destination with no filler. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding of the tool's purpose.

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 no annotations and no output schema, so the description should provide the missing context. It fails to clarify that only job_id is required while output_path is optional, leaving ambiguous where the file is written if output_path is omitted. It also does not explain the profile parameter, making parameter usage for full invocation incomplete.

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 only 33%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. job_id and profile are left undocumented in both the schema and the description, while output_path is the only parameter that already has schema documentation. The description does not explain what profile refers to or how the optional output_path behavior works.

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 (download), a specific resource (a completed Survey Solutions export job), and a concrete destination (a local file path on the MCP host). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect_export_file or get_export_job, which deal with viewing or checking jobs rather than retrieving the file to disk.

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 word 'completed' implies this tool should only be used after an export job has finished, giving some contextual timing guidance. However, there is no explicit mention of when not to use it, what to use instead for checking status or starting a job, or any prerequisite steps such as calling start_export or get_export_job first.

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