backup_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 clearly states this is a download returning base64-encoded binary ZIP data, which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose size limits, whether the data is large enough to require streaming, auth requirements for download, or how the base64 data should be decoded/handled. It also doesn't clarify what happens if the backup isn't in completed status (error behavior). For a binary-data-returning tool with zero annotations, more behavioral context is needed.

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. Every clause adds value: the verb+resource purpose, the return format (base64 ZIP), and the prerequisite status condition. This is appropriately concise and 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?

The tool is a fairly simple operation (download ZIP by ID) with 100% schema coverage and two params. The description covers purpose, return format, and a key precondition. With no annotations and no output schema, it could add more, but given the low complexity the description is reasonably complete. The key missing piece is error/edge behavior for incomplete backups and any size/encoding considerations, but these are minor for a simple retrieval tool.

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 the schema documents both parameters (id as 'Backup job ID', companyId as 'Company UUID override'). The description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond the schema, but with full coverage the baseline of 3 applies. The description does clarify that the 'id' refers to a completed backup, which adds a small dimension. However, it doesn't elaborate on the companyId override behavior or clarify the relationship between the id and companyId beyond what the schema says.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Download a completed backup') and clarifies the output format (ZIP, base64). It clearly states a prerequisite (must be in completed status). This distinguishes it from siblings like backup_status, backup_create, and backup_restore, and from exports_download. The purpose is specific and clear.

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 states 'The backup must be in completed status', which is a clear prerequisite/condition for usage. It implicitly tells the agent to check backup_status before calling this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly name an alternative or contrast with backup_status, backup_restore, or exports_download among siblings. The 'when to use' is reasonably clear but the 'when not to use / alternatives' is not explicitly addressed.

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