pipeshub_download_record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds valuable behavioral context: conversion behavior (only application/pdf accepted, bare 'pdf' ignored), output encoding (text inline, binary as base64), and the distinction between stored file and parsed content. No contradiction with annotations. The only minor omission is lack of error handling detail, but that is beyond typical expectations.

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 moderately long but every sentence serves a distinct purpose: purpose, usage, exclusions, and conversion behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and keeps exclusions and details in later sentences. No filler or redundant phrasing; it earns its length.

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 download tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: how to obtain the recordId, what convertTo accepts, output encoding, and what this tool is not for. The sibling references complete the routing. Nothing critical is missing.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description adds value beyond the schema: for recordId, it reiterates the source (citation or search) and clarifies the format expectation; for convertTo, it explains that only 'application/pdf' is honored and that 'pdf' is silently ignored. This extra context helps the agent avoid common mistakes.

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, specific verb and resource: 'Download the file as stored for one record'. It explicitly contrasts with parsed content, metadata header, and summary, and names the sibling tool for reading content. This fully distinguishes it from pipeshub_get_record_content without needing to inspect schemas.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this when the user wants the file itself') and when-not-to-use ('Do not use this to read, summarize, or answer...'), and points to the correct alternative (pipeshub_get_record_content mode:"content"). It also tells the agent where to obtain recordId, leaving no ambiguity about invocation context.

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