store_download

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'download' which implies a read operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, affects system state, or what the output format is. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the complexity (3 parameters with a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the purpose of the parameters, the download behavior, or what the tool returns, leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely involves asset retrieval and licensing.

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 0%, meaning none of the 3 parameters (id, name, license with nested author, authorUrl, license) are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about what these parameters mean, their formats, or how they relate to downloading assets, failing to compensate for the schema gap.

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 clearly states the action ('download') and resource ('asset from the store'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'store_get' or 'store_search', which might also retrieve assets, so it lacks sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'store_get' or 'store_search', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for downloading assets. It simply states what the tool does without indicating appropriate scenarios.

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