Download document attachment

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by revealing that the result is a temporary download URL rather than file content, and that it targets one specific attachment. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the prerequisite about fetching attachment ids is placed directly after. 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 read-only tool whose safety profile is already covered by annotations, the description provides the essential operational details: what is returned, for which object, and how to find the needed attachment_id. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by explicitly saying the output is a temporary download URL.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the source of attachment_id, and the document_type enum is self-explanatory, but document_id and the relationship between parameters are left mostly to inference. The compensation is partial.

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 precise verb and resource: 'Return a temporary download URL for one attachment of a document.' This clearly communicates the tool's function and distinguishes it from list/get tools and the PDF-download siblings by focusing on individual 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 second sentence gives actionable usage context: obtain attachment ids from the document via get_purchase_invoice, get_receipt, or the matching get tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives for downloading full documents, so it stops short of full when-to-use-versus-alternatives guidance.

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