Show An Individual Managed Equipment Maintenance Log Attachment

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the main behavioral traits. The description adds context about required parameters and the API endpoint but doesn't elaborate on potential error cases or response structure. 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?

The description is concise (3-4 sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it repeats 'Field Productivity' twice and mixes endpoints details. Slightly tighter wording could improve it.

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 the annotations and schema, the description covers the main purpose and required parameters. It lacks details on pagination parameters' relevance and output format, but overall it's sufficiently complete for a read-only retrieval tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists required parameters but does not add meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It doesn't explain relationships or constraints like the optional page/per_page parameters for a singular retrieval.

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 it returns detailed information about a specific attachment, using the verb 'Return' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_all_maintenance_logs_attachment' by the 'individual' scope. However, it confusingly mentions 'Field Productivity records' which may misalign with the actual resource.

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 says 'Use this to fetch the full details of a specific...' but does not explicitly exclude when not to use it or mention alternative tools (e.g., for bulk retrieval). Usage context is implied from the name and siblings but not stated.

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