Download a shared deck

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only cover readOnly/openWorld/destructive) by disclosing three non-obvious traits: existing files are never overwritten (new file gets a numbered name), a session may be prompted after a few downloads, and the personal-use licensing restriction. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and return value, then collision-handling, then auth behavior and licensing. Every sentence carries distinct information with no padding.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it still notes what is returned (the saved path). Between the write-safety note, the deferred-auth behavior, and the licensing constraint, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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%, so both 'deck' (id or URL) and 'directory' (absolute path, defaults to server downloads dir) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (download), resource (a shared deck's .apkg), and destination (to disk), plus the return value (where it was saved). This is clear and functional, though it never explicitly names the sibling it differs from (e.g. get_shared_deck for metadata vs. this tool for retrieving the file).

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?

Usage is implied by the action rather than stated: no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives such as get_shared_deck or search_shared_decks. The description does supply useful context on the AnkiWeb session requirement, but does not route the agent among siblings.

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