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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context about what the returned record contains, such as requirements grouped by any-of/all-of logic and what the attachment provides once fitted. This goes beyond the annotation bare minimum, though it does not cover error behavior or missing-record handling.

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?

The description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the core action ('Returns the full record') and then lists the relevant record fields with useful parenthetical clarification. Every clause adds information; no filler or repetition is present.

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 single-parameter, read-only get-by-slug tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the response will contain. The fields mentioned—requirements, provided effects, caliber ratings, weight, length, and sources—give an agent a complete mental model of the return value. The parameter is fully documented in the schema, so nothing essential is missing.

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%: the id parameter is already documented as 'The attachment slug, e.g. as returned by a list or search tool.' The description does not add extra parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with 'Returns the full record for one attachment', giving a specific verb and resource, and then details exactly what the full record contains: requirements, provided effects, caliber ratings, weight, length, and sources. This clearly differentiates it from sibling list/search tools by emphasizing a single-attachment retrieval.

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 does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like gunspec_list_attachments or gunspec_firearm_attachments. The id parameter schema mentions slugs from a list or search tool, but that guidance lives in the schema, not the description. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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