Download item details

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior an agent could not infer: fields are omitted per-site (soft98 has no size; vgdl has neither size nor requirements), and download links, passwords and crack notes are deliberately never returned, with a directive to open the item page and check the licence instead.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The returned-field list comes first, then the caveats, so the most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the burden of describing the return payload and its site-dependent omissions, which it does well. It stops short of covering failure modes (invalid/non-item url) or noting that the fetched page must be opened for links and licensing, but nothing essential for calling the tool 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the url (source sites plus an example), so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by tying response shape to the url's domain (soft98, vgdl), which tells the agent that the same parameter yields different field sets depending on which site the url points to.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return the details of one download item') and enumerates the exact fields returned (name, version, size, category, date, description, requirements). This is clearly distinguishable from the dl_search/dl_latest/dl_list_sources siblings, which are list-style rather than single-item detail fetches.

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 never explicitly says when to reach for this tool versus the siblings; the workflow hint ('url from dl_search or dl_latest') lives in the schema property, not the description. Usage is implied by the fact that a url is required and by how the url param is sourced, which is adequate but not stated as guidance.

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