get_download_links

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description discloses important behavioral details: the required video_files scope, that links are signed, and that they expire within a few hours. It also highlights that this is the sole retrieval path for original files. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides the scope requirement and expiration behavior, then the strategic note about being the only way to retrieve an original file. Every sentence earns its place.

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 low-complexity tool with one parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, this description is complete. It covers purpose, required scope, signed-expiring URL behavior, and the uniqueness of the operation. An agent has everything needed to decide when to invoke it and what to expect.

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 already documents the single parameter video_id as 'Video id,' giving 100% schema description coverage. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but with one simple required parameter and full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Get direct download URLs for a video's source and rendered files.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is 'the only way to retrieve an original file through the API,' so an agent can tell it apart from get_video or other read 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 gives explicit prerequisites ('Needs the video_files scope, which is off by default') and a clear selection signal ('This is the only way to retrieve an original file through the API'). It does not explicitly name when not to use it or list alternative tools, but the uniqueness claim provides strong usage context.

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