get_download

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only states that it returns 'download status and URL'. It does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, whether the status may be pending, or what happens if the download is not ready. Lack of such details leaves behavior opaque.

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, concise sentence with no fluff or repetition. It efficiently states the tool's core function, though it is quite telegraphic and could benefit from a bit more context without losing conciseness.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what the token refers to, how the status and URL are returned, or how this tool fits into the broader download workflow. Given the presence of related siblings, more contextual detail is needed.

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?

The schema has only one parameter 'token' with no description, and the tool description does not mention the token at all. With 0% schema description coverage and no compensating explanation in the description, the parameter's meaning and format remain entirely unclear.

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 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'download status and URL', which clearly states the tool's function. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'get_asset_download', which likely has a similar purpose, so it falls short of full clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_download' or 'get_asset_download'. The description does not mention any prerequisites, such as needing a token from a previously created download, nor does it suggest polling behavior.

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