getDealAttachment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'Get' with no additional context about return format, error behavior, permissions, or whether the actual file content or just metadata is returned. This is minimal for a read operation without annotation support.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose, making it exceptionally concise and well-structured.

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 1-parameter getter, the description is adequate but lacks detail about the return value, such as whether it returns file content or metadata. Since there is no output schema to fill this gap, the description would benefit from mentioning what the response contains, though the tool's simplicity keeps the gap small.

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% with 'Attachment ID' clearly describing the 'id' parameter. The description's 'by ID' reinforces the schema but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Get a deal attachment by ID' clearly identifies the action (get), resource (deal attachment), and qualifier (by ID). It is distinct from sibling tools like createDealAttachment and getPersonAttachment, which differ by action or resource type.

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 implies usage when you have a deal attachment ID and need the attachment, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or any exclusions. No alternative tools are mentioned, though the sibling context makes the use case reasonably clear.

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