download

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the action is asynchronous ('Queue'), that a server-side prerequisite must be met, and that inputs must exactly match prior search results. However, it does not explain permission requirements, side effects, or what the queued download entails beyond being queued.

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 two sentences with no filler. The main action comes first, followed by the prerequisite and the critical parameter guidance. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 description covers the core action, prerequisite, and a key parameter constraint, and an output schema exists so return-value documentation is less critical. Still, with no annotations and four parameters, the description leaves username semantics and the optional search_id role unexplained, so it is not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for filename and size by requiring exact values from search_results, but it leaves username and search_id unexplained. Username is required and important, so the parameter guidance is incomplete.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Queue a file for download.' This is clear and distinct from the immediate action implied by the tool name. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like download_status or cancel_download, but the queueing focus is enough to identify the core purpose.

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 a clear precondition: 'Requires the server to have been started with downloads enabled.' It also tells the agent to 'Use the exact filename and size from search_results,' which implies the recommended workflow and parameter sourcing. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear.

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