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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context by noting the download URL is short-lived and separately minted. It does not cover pagination or error behavior, but for a single-item read that is minor.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the one optional behavior that changes the call. No 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Purpose, the optional URL behavior, and the embedding use case are all covered, which is everything an agent needs to call this single-record read 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: the kb-attachment://<uuid> embedding convention that explains why the uuid matters. That is useful semantic context rather than a restatement.

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 ('Retrieve attachment metadata') scoped to a single attachment, which separates it from kb_attachments_list without needing to open either schema. The added detail about attachment_uuid being the embedding handle makes the output's purpose concrete.

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?

Explicitly gives the condition for include_download_url=true ('when you will download the bytes') and redirects to attachment_uuid for embedding. It doesn't compare itself to sibling tools like kb_attachments_list or kb_attachments_view_image, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternatives coverage.

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