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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, read-only, idempotent call, and the description still contributes real behavior: the 1 MiB native envelope and the automatic URL fallback, the short lifetime of presentation URLs, and the explicit guarantee that MinIO and original bytes are never exposed as a download.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then layered with mode semantics and constraints in three tight sentences. The opening clause and the auto-fallback clause overlap slightly, and the MinIO sentence reads as a defensive aside, but nothing is padded.

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 an output schema and full schema descriptions in place, the description only needs to cover mode behavior and rendering constraints, which it does. The threshold, the fallback trigger, and the non-exposure guarantee are exactly the facts an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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; the description still adds semantic weight by framing 'native' as requiring ImageContent versus 'url' as an explicit request for the presentation capability, which tells the agent these modes can fail differently. tenant_slug semantics are left entirely to 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Present an existing Brainattic image attachment') and clarifies it renders image content rather than metadata. It never names the adjacent kb_attachments_get or kb_attachments_list, so the distinction from those siblings is left to inference.

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 concrete selection guidance across the presentation_mode values: auto by default, native to force ImageContent, url to request the Brainattic presentation capability. It stops short of saying when to reach for this tool over kb_attachments_get when the caller wants metadata rather than a rendered image.

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