outlook_download_attachment

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'download', implying a read operation but not explicitly confirming non-destructiveness or side effects. It fails to disclose what happens to the attachment (e.g., stored in memory, returned as binary), leaving behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise sentence that communicates the core action efficiently. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though it could benefit from a brief elaboration on usage without losing conciseness.

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 lack of an output schema and 4 parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., file content, URL) or how to interpret the response, leaving the agent without critical output context for a download operation.

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 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the description does not need to add much. However, it adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying the role of 'includeContent' or 'decodeContent' defaults, resulting in adequate but not enhanced semantics.

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 uses the verb 'Download' and the resource 'email attachment', clearly indicating the action and object. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'outlook_add_attachment' (add) and 'outlook_list_attachments' (list), but does not explicitly differentiate from other download-like tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'outlook_list_attachments' to get attachment IDs first. There are no prerequisites or conditions mentioned, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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