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

Annotations already declare this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds value by disclosing that TempDownloadUri is a short-lived download link to the original file, which is a meaningful behavioral detail an agent should know before relying on the URI. No contradictions with annotations are present.

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 short sentences with no filler. The first sentence identifies the exact operation and scope, and the second adds a relevant caveat about the download URL. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only fetch-by-id tool, the description, annotations, and complete schema coverage are sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. The TempDownloadUri note adds the most important return-behavior context; a fuller response shape description would be nice but is not essential here.

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 already fully documents both `id` and `company`. The description's mention of 'by Id' aligns with the required parameter but does not add semantic detail beyond the schema, which is acceptable at baseline.

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 verb ('Get'), resource ('a single attachable'), and lookup method ('by Id'), making it clear this is a point-read operation. It also adds useful domain context about TempDownloadUri, and the singular 'single attachable' distinguishes it from search_attachables and create/update/delete siblings.

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 clearly conveys when to use this tool: when you already have a QuickBooks Attachable Id and need the single attachable record. It does not explicitly name alternatives like search_attachables for listing/filtering, so it falls short of a 5, but the 'single ... by Id' framing provides clear usage context.

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