Api document attachments retrieve 2

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond annotations: unauthorized related fields are masked in the response. However it does not say what happens on a missing/inaccessible id, nor whether masking cancels the whole request or just nulls fields.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, and the informative masking detail is present rather than buried. It is under-specified rather than bloated, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 one-parameter detail-fetch with no output schema, the description should at least say what entity is returned and how it relates to the download/file variant. Neither the object type nor the id semantics are covered, leaving the agent to guess among many similarly named tools.

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 0% for the single 'id' parameter, and the description gives no clarification. It is unclear whether the id is the attachment id, the parent document id, or a revision id — a distinction that matters given the several attachment-related siblings.

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 says it returns 'a single object' but never identifies the object as a document attachment record; the resource is only inferable from the tool name. It does not distinguish this from sibling retrievals such as ciso_assistant_api_document_attachments_retrieve, _object_retrieve, or _file_retrieve, so an agent cannot tell which one returns what.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the near-identical siblings (_retrieve, _object_retrieve, _file_retrieve) in the same family. No preconditions, no note on what kind of id is expected, and no exclusions are given.

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