pipeshub_download_record

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent read (`readOnlyHint: true`, `idempotentHint: true`, `destructiveHint: false`), lowering the burden on the description. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it explains that the Content-Type is forwarded from upstream, binary content is base64-encoded, and text content is inline. This gives the agent realistic expectations about the response without contradicting the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. The bullet-style source examples are easy to scan Bernstein and the final sentence clearly conveys response encoding without redundancy. No sentence is wasted, and the structure helps an agent quickly extract the key facts.

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?

Given two parameters, one required, and no output schema, the description covers the essential call details: where to get `recordId`, what the response is like, and how content is encoded. The main miss is the lack of guidance about how this tool relates to `pipeshub_get_record_content`, which prevents the context from being fully complete for tool selection.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds examples of where `recordId` comes from, but these examples also appear in the schema's parameter description. It does not meaningfully extend parameter understanding, particularly for `convertTo`, which is only described in the schema. This matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Stream the binary content of a single record from PipesHub.' The title 'Download a document by record id' reinforces the operation. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling `pipeshub_get_record_content`, so an agent may not be able to distinguish the two tools solely from this description.

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 provides useful context for the `recordId` parameter by pointing to chat citations and search results, which helps an agent know where to obtain the input. It does not, however, say when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as `pipeshub_get_record_content`, nor does it state exclusions or conditions for use. The usage guidance is therefore implied rather than explicit.

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