get_transaction_attachment_url

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by disclosing that the URL is 'short-lived' and 'signed', and that the response includes an 'expires_at' timestamp. This provides behavioral context beyond the annotation, though it could clarify the duration of 'short-lived'.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, the first stating the core purpose, the second detailing the response. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the key action.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, no enums, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does and what the response contains. The annotation provides readOnlyHint, and the description explains the response fields. No gaps remain.

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 single parameter file_id has 100% schema description coverage ('ID of the file attachment.'). The description does not add further meaning or constraints beyond the schema, such as format or source of the file_id. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3.

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 explicitly states the action: 'Get a short-lived signed download URL for a transaction file attachment'. It specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'download URL', and the context 'transaction file attachment', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'attach_file_to_transaction' or 'delete_transaction_attachment'.

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 (to retrieve a download URL) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or suggest alternatives, such as using 'attach_file_to_transaction' for uploading or 'delete_transaction_attachment' for removal. The context of sibling tools is not leveraged.

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