download_artifact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states the tool returns a dict with status and saved path, but does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, error handling, or concurrency limits. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 well-organized with sections for args, returns, and examples. It is slightly verbose but all content is relevant and aids understanding. No wasted sentences.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, multiple artifact types, and an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what inputs are required, optional, and format-specific details. The examples provide clear invocation patterns. Output schema exists, so return values need no further explanation.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: artifact_type values with formats, artifact_id as optional, output_format and slide_deck_format defaults and options. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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's purpose: 'Download any NotebookLM artifact to a file.' It specifies all artifact types and presents itself as a unified replacement for 9 separate tools, distinguishing it from siblings.

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 explicit context for when to use specific parameters (e.g., output_format for quiz/flashcards only, slide_deck_format for slide_deck) and includes three diverse examples. However, it does not directly compare with the sibling 'export_artifact' or state when to avoid using this tool.

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