get_file_download_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose that the URL is secure and temporary, which is real information. However it omits the authorization requirements, whether the link is single-use, what happens when the file is missing or still processing, and any rate limiting — meaningful gaps for a tool that grants access to document contents.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and followed by the consumer benefit; there is no filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 read-style tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers what the tool produces (a URL) and its temporary nature. What is missing is secondary: permission requirements, expiry edge cases, and behavior on invalid fileId.

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%, with both fileId ('UUID of the uploaded file record') and expiresInSeconds ('default: 300 = 5 minutes for privacy') documented. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a concrete verb+resource pair ('Generate a ... presigned download URL for an uploaded file') and adds the agent-facing rationale ('so an AI or operator can inspect the document contents'). That makes it trivially distinguishable from the CRUD siblings like get_intake_request or get_template, none of which produce URLs.

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 clause 'so an AI or operator can inspect the document contents' implies the intended use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not framing, no prerequisite (e.g. file must already be uploaded and have a known UUID), and no mention of what to do if the link expires or the file is inaccessible. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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