hires_download_attachment

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

Even without annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: the URL must belong to the configured API host, other hosts are rejected to prevent Bearer token leakage, the response contains file_name, mime_type, size, and base64-encoded data, and files over 25 MB are rejected up-front without memory loading. This covers security, return format, and size limits.

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 packs substantial detail into two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main action, provides examples, and states constraints and return format in an organized manner. 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description alone must explain the return format and edge cases. It does this thoroughly: returns {file_name, mime_type, size, data}, base64 encoding, size limit, and host restriction. For a single-parameter tool, this is complete.

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 for the single 'url' parameter is 100%, and the schema already includes a detailed description with an example URL. The tool description adds the security rationale about host matching but does not introduce new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. 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 begins with the specific verb 'Download an attachment' and enumerates the exact resource types (resume, candidate file, application file, mail attachment, call recording). It clearly distinguishes this download tool from upload/list siblings like hires_upload_attachment and hires_list_application_attachments.

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 explicitly states the tool expects an absolute URL returned by another endpoint, which tells the agent when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough. A brief exclusion (e.g., 'for uploading use hires_upload_attachment') would push this to 5.

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