Get Company File

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It supplements the schema by specifying that binary files are returned as base64-encoded content, and that the response includes file size and metadata. This goes beyond the parameter schema, though it does not detail error cases or authentication requirements.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every word adds value. There is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: the download action, handling of binary files (base64), and additional metadata. The only minor gap is the lack of clarification for non-binary files, but overall this is largely complete.

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% for the sole parameter (fileId), so the schema already explains its purpose. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable at the baseline of 3 for high 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 uses a specific verb ('Download') and resource ('specific company document') with an explicit mechanism ('by ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list-company-files (which lists files) and employee-specific 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?

The description implies usage: you need a file ID and want the document content. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like obtaining the ID via list-company-files. There are no exclusions but no explicit 'when not to use' guidance either.

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