get_document_translation_result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses non-obvious behavior: comparison versions are synthesized on demand and not prefetched, slowness on first fetch is normal, URLs use CloudFront with url2 as domestic fallback, and query-string signature parameters must be preserved verbatim or the link fails with 403. This is far beyond a bare statement.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then packs related warnings and URL-handling rules into a dense but purposeful paragraph. There is no filler or duplicated schema content, and each clause adds operational value.

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 and no annotations, the description goes beyond the basics by explaining the response's two link fields, the signing requirement, the 403 failure mode, and the latency behavior. It also embeds parameter constraints and user-facing instructions, leaving no major gap for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 already documents all four parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3; the description nevertheless adds operational meaning for url_type (including the warning '要译文不要传 1' and the PDF/EPUB constraints) and explains the meaning of url/url2 in the response. It doesn't need to repeat locale/order_no/is_watermark because the schema covers them.

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?

Opens with the concrete action '获取文档翻译结果下载链接' (get document translation result download link), naming both the verb and the exact resource. By describing download-link retrieval rather than status, it clearly separates it from sibling tools like get_document_translation_status and list_document_translations.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions for each url_type and states when not to act: '对照版是取的时候现合成的，第一次取可能要多等一会儿……别当成失败去重试，更不要因此改回纯译文' and '用户点名要哪一版再来调'. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, so it falls just short of a full when/when-not comparison.

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