download_material

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds that the download goes to a private local directory and returns path and extracted text, but it does not disclose side effects like overwrite behavior or storage limits. The description provides some additional context but not rich behavioral detail.

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 a single sentence that immediately states the core action and expected return values. There is no filler or repetition, and the key 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?

For a tool with four parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the parameters, describe the exact return format (beyond 'local path and extracted text'), or address error cases or prerequisites. An agent would need to inspect the schema and infer behavior, which is risky.

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 50% (courseId and topicId have descriptions), but the description does not mention any parameters. It does not compensate for the undocumented offset and maxChars parameters, which are non-obvious (offset likely for pagination, maxChars for truncation). The description adds no value beyond the schema's existing field descriptions.

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 ('Download'), a resource ('course topic'), and an outcome (return local path and extracted text). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like read_material by emphasizing the download-to-local-directory aspect, which is not implied by other tool names.

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 clear context about what the tool does and where it downloads, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like read_material or get_course_content. There are no exclusion criteria or alternative tool references, leaving selection to the agent's inference.

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