download_history

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the return is a file receipt rather than rows, the 100,000-row default cap, that complete/next_offset disclose truncation, that live exports are not atomic snapshots, and that returned content is untrusted data. This goes well past what readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint supply.

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?

Five dense sentences, each load-bearing: format choice, output type, truncation, atomicity caveat, and trust warning. Front-loaded with the primary purpose and zero filler.

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 7-parameter export tool with no output schema and 14% schema coverage, the description covers formats, truncation, and safety but omits any meaning for save_as, max_bytes, and the keys parameter's role. Enough to call it correctly in the common case, but not 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?

With only 14% schema coverage, the description carries most of the burden, and it does explain format semantics (JSONL all fields by default vs CSV needing explicit keys) and the max_rows default/cap as well as offset behavior via next_offset. However it leaves save_as, max_bytes, and the keys array constraints unexplained, so compensation is partial.

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 and resource ('Export history') plus the two output formats (JSONL/CSV), and clarifies output shape ('Returns a file receipt, not row contents'), which implicitly separates it from the sibling get_history. It does not name get_history directly, so sibling differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Implies the appropriate context (bulk export to a local file, CSV requires explicit keys), but never says when to prefer this over get_history or other retrieval siblings, nor when-not to use it. Usage is left to inference.

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