download_document

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the side effect of saving to downloads/jcs/documentos/ and the return value (absolute path), but it omits behavior around overwrites, filename defaults, or error handling. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It uses a clear Args/Returns structure with no filler or redundant information.

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 two-parameter download tool with an output schema, the description covers the source URI, destination folder, optional filename, and return value. It could reference alternatives like get_document_content, but the description is largely self-contained and sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that uri is a signed document URI from a message detail response and gives an example for the optional filename. It does not clarify the default filename behavior when omitted, which is a minor gap.

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 opens with 'Download a clinical document PDF by signed URI', which is a specific verb-object pair with clear scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_document_content by specifying that it saves a PDF to a local directory.

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 states the prerequisite clearly: 'The uri comes from get_message() response.' This gives the agent the needed workflow context. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage intent is evident.

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