download_attachment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the operation is read-only, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention potential error conditions, rate limits, or how the content is returned (binary vs base64), though the output schema likely covers return format.

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 two short sentences that convey purpose, read-only nature, and usage guidance. No filler, front-loaded with the main action, and 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 one-parameter download tool with an output schema, the description fully covers the when and where. The usage context is clear, the parameter is well-defined, and no ambiguity remains about intended use.

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 schema fully describes the required 'url' parameter (100% coverage), meeting the baseline. The description adds value by contextualizing the parameter's source (from candidate attachments or application data) and giving a concrete example of where to obtain it, going slightly beyond the 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 states a specific verb ('Download') and resource ('content from a Greenhouse attachment URL'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing specifically on attachment URLs, unlike read_candidate_resume or other resume-specific tools.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('Use when you have a specific attachment URL from a candidate or application record') and provides a concrete example (get_candidate's attachments array). It does not name alternative tools or exclude cases, but the context is strong.

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