Get Account Downloads

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get account download history' without revealing any behavioral traits such as whether it returns a list, supports pagination, requires authentication, or what constitutes 'history'. This is minimal information beyond the tool's name.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It gets straight to the point and is appropriately sized for the tool's straightforward name. There is no wasted content.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is too under-specified to fully inform usage. It doesn't explain what fields are returned in the download history, how filters like min_date/max_date interplay, or the meaning of include/exclude. The schema covers parameters but not behavior or output, so the description should compensate; it doesn't.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters, each with a brief description (e.g., order, format, date filters). The tool description itself doesn't mention parameters, but since the schema already documents them, the baseline of 3 applies. No additional semantic value is provided by the description.

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 tool's purpose: retrieving account download history. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('account download history'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_account_info or get_account_plans. However, it relies heavily on the tool name and doesn't add additional scoping details, so it's not exceptionally informative.

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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. The agent receives no context about when to prefer this over other 'get' tools, making this a significant gap.

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