Hent selve dataene fra en distribusjon

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it explains that CSV is parsed into columns and sample rows, JSON is summarized as structure plus excerpt, other text is shown as-is, and save_path streams content to a file. It also discloses the public http/https restriction, which is important operational context.

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 compact and well-structured: first the core action, then the content-format behaviors, then the save_path streaming guidance and URL restriction. Each sentence adds distinct value with no repetition or filler.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the main behavior, the supported content types, how to avoid previewing large/binary files, and URL restrictions. Minor gaps remain, such as possible file overwrite behavior with save_path and handling of download errors, but the essential usage context is present.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it explains the purpose of save_path for large/binary files and adds the restriction that only public http/https URLs are allowed. This helps the agent choose and set parameters more correctly.

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 downloads a distribution URL (downloadURL or accessURL) and inspects its content, with distinct handling for CSV, JSON, and other text. It is specific about the resource and action, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_resource in the prose.

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 gives practical usage guidance for save_path, recommending it for large or binary files and subsequent analysis with normal tools. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over sibling tools like get_resource, search, or ask, leaving the comparison mostly implicit.

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