Show An Individual Time And Material Attachment

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's behavior claims are safe. The description adds that it returns a JSON object and references the API endpoint, but it has a slight inconsistency calling the resource 'Field Productivity records' instead of 'attachment', which could cause confusion.

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 with four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, return type, required parameters, and API reference. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers the main purpose but leaves ambiguity about the pagination parameters (page, per_page) in the schema, which seem irrelevant for a single resource. Also, the repeated term 'Field Productivity records' could mislead an agent about the actual resource type. Without an output schema, a more precise return description would help.

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 all parameters have descriptions. The description reinforces required parameters but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 detailed information about a specific time and material attachment, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from list siblings by emphasizing 'specific' and providing the endpoint for a single 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 tells when to use the tool: to fetch full details of a specific record by identifier. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context of sibling list tools makes it clear, and it lists required parameters.

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