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

Discloses return format (content_base64, content_type, size_bytes) and bulk execution behavior. Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the description adds useful context about what is returned and batch capability.

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 pack significant information, but the first sentence is in Portuguese which may cause slight confusion. Overall efficient with no fluff.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers input parameters, return fields, and bulk support, making it self-sufficient.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains the meaning of each parameter: accounts (single entry or omit), attachment_id (single download), attachment_ids (bulk). This adds essential meaning beyond the raw 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?

The description clearly states the tool downloads attachments by ID, specifying supported formats (PNG/JPEG/PDF) and return fields. It differentiates from sibling tools which handle other entities like balance, bill, card, etc.

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?

Provides guidance on when to use the accounts parameter (single entry or omit for single-account installs) and describes bulk support via attachment_ids. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives.

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