Download All Company-Level Email Attachments

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

The description is consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint). It adds the behavioral context that the tool returns a JSON object with file contents or a download URL, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions found.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It contains two slightly repetitive phrases ('for Emails'), but overall every sentence adds value. The structure is clear, starting with the primary output, then usage, then return format, then required params and API reference.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description adequately describes the return format (JSON with download URL or file contents). It also provides the API endpoint and module, making the tool self-contained. The required parameters are listed, and the schema covers optional ones. The description is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 input schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions (coverage 100%). The description lists the three required parameters and the endpoint URL, which reinforces their roles but does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The optional pagination parameters are not elaborated.

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 clearly states the tool returns a URL to download all email attachments in .zip format for company-level communications. It specifies the verb 'download', the resource 'email attachments', and the scope 'company-level', distinguishing it from similar sibling tools like 'download_all_email_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 provides context on when to use the tool: 'Use this to retrieve a downloadable file or export URL for Emails.' It also lists required parameters and the API endpoint, but does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives.

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