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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, which cover the safety profile. The description adds the HTTP GET method and endpoint, which is consistent with the read-only behavior, but does not add details about response format, auth requirements, or pagination.

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?

A single sentence with the essential action and endpoint, no filler. The description is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

The tool is simple and the purpose is clear: retrieve a lead's attachments. However, the optional query and account parameters are undocumented and there is no output schema, so the agent still faces some uncertainty about filtering options and response shape.

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 endpoint makes it explicit that leadId is a path parameter identifying the lead. The description does not explain the meaning of the query or account parameters, and with schema coverage at 0%, these two optional parameters remain ambiguous.

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 operation: 'Buscar os arquivos anexados ao lead' (fetch the files attached to the lead), with the exact endpoint. This differentiates it from sibling tools like datacrazy_leads_attachments_create/delete and datacrazy_leads_list.

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 intended context is clear: use this tool when you need the attachments for a lead, using the leadId. It does not, however, mention exclusions or alternative tools to avoid, so it stops short of fully explicit guidance.

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