Download a campaign's proposals summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new trait — that the call returns a file rather than structured data — but says nothing about permissions, file size, or whether the extended PDF differs structurally.

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?

One dense sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the usage trigger before the parameter note and return note. Slightly compressed grammar ("extended adds the details of each media") costs a little readability.

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 no output schema, the description should carry the return-value burden and it does only minimally ("Returns the file"). For a two-parameter download tool that is just about adequate, but the meaning of `id` and the exact PDF content variation under `extended` remain underspecified.

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 50%: `id` has no schema description, and `extended` is documented as "Whether to show the prices" while the description calls it "adds the details of each media" — related but not identical, leaving the agent to reconcile two phrasings. The description does at least clarify the practical effect of `extended`, but not what `id` refers to.

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+resource: produce the PDF summary of a managed service campaign's proposals, plus that it returns a file. That distinguishes it from list_managed_service_proposals and review_managed_service_proposals by output format, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

"Use this when the user wants the PDF summary ... as the campaign page offers it" gives a clear trigger condition. But there is no statement of when NOT to use it or which sibling (list_managed_service_proposals, review_managed_service_proposals, estimate_managed_service_proposals) to prefer when the user just wants the data rather than the PDF.

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