Download history

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

With readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint already covering the safety profile, the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a flat 5-credit cost. That pricing detail is not derivable from annotations or schema. It stops short of describing the returned series shape or any windowing caveats.

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?

One dense sentence front-loads purpose (timeline), then endpoint, sibling relationship, and cost, with zero filler. Every clause carries information an agent can use.

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 read-only, 2-parameter tool whose annotations and full schema coverage carry most of the load, the description is nearly complete. The only gap is return-shape explanation, which matters slightly since there is no output schema.

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%, so the schema already documents both 'id' (author/name format) and 'days' (0-365, default 90). The description adds no format or default detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('per-model download timeline') and even names the REST endpoint, then explicitly positions it against the sibling get_download_anomalies as 'the raw series get_download_anomalies scans.' An agent can distinguish it from that sibling without opening either schema.

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 relationship clause ('the raw series get_download_anomalies scans') gives clear routing context for choosing this over the anomalies tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or prerequisite guidance. Good context, no exclusions.

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