getJobResultFileContent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: the file body is returned as UTF-8 text, plain-text formats are readable, and binary formats (images, PDF, Office) 'arrive garbled' — a genuinely useful caveat an agent cannot infer from the schema. This is clear, non-contradictory enrichment.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: purpose, behavioral caveat, precondition, and alternative routing are each given exactly one clause. The critical gotcha (binary garbling) is front-loaded near the top, and the sibling routing is saved for the end as a natural pointer. 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing the return value ('returned as UTF-8 text... binary files arrive garbled'), so an agent knows what response shape to expect. It also covers the invocation contract (finished job, filename source, log alternative). Only minor edge cases like error behavior or size limits are left out, which are not essential for correct invocation.

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 parameters (jobId's polling flow and filename's Download File Name role). The description adds modest value by pointing out that the job resource lists the available file names, which hints at how to populate filename, but it does not go beyond that baseline meaningfully.

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 a specific verb+resource pair ('Downloads one result file produced by a finished asynchronous job') and names a concrete example (the spreadsheet from getExportExcelTests). It explicitly distinguishes itself from getJobLogContent, telling the agent exactly which sibling handles the log case instead.

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?

Explicit preconditions are given: 'Call it only after getJob reports the job as finished' and 'the job resource lists the available file names' tells the agent where to source the filename. It also names the alternative for logs ('use getJobLogContent'), so an agent receives both when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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