download_4473Download a completed ATF Form 4473 PDF by its ID, returning the file base64-encoded.
Download a completed ATF Form 4473 PDF by its id. Returns the file base64-encoded. Read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Which configured FastBound account to use for this one call — an alias or account number (see list_accounts). Omit to use the active account. | |
| form4473Id | Yes | GUID of the 4473. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Input schema / properties / accountAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Which configured FastBound account to use for this one call — an alias or account number (see list_accounts). Omit to use the active account.",
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read'. It also adds valuable behavioral detail by stating the response is the file base64-encoded, which is not implied by the schema or annotations.
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 one efficient sentence that front-loads the action, resource, and return format. Every word earns its place, and the final 'Read' reinforces the safety profile without adding bulk.
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 simple two-parameter download tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers required input, the completed-PDF precondition, and the base64 return format. Missing details like error behavior or file metadata are minor given the tool's low complexity and full schema coverage.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents both form4473Id and account. The description adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema, which is acceptable under the baseline for high coverage.
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 action, 'Download', a precise resource, 'completed ATF Form 4473 PDF', and the lookup key, 'by its id'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling download tools like download_attachment and download_bound_book.
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 makes it clear this is for downloading completed 4473 PDFs, which implies when it should be selected over other download tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource scope is specific enough for an agent to route correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.