get_document_attachment

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds that the output is Base64 content, which is useful. However, it omits potential size limits or response structure, relying on the output schema.

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, front-loaded sentence. It is concise but could be more structured with separate sentences for functionality and usage. The brevity is appropriate, but it lacks completeness.

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?

While the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, the description does not provide essential usage context such as parameter requirements. For a simple tool with one parameter, this is a significant gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter (document_id), the description does not explain the parameter at all. It fails to mention that a document_id is required or how to obtain it, making it difficult for an agent to use correctly.

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 the content of a document attachment in Base64 format. The verb 'get' and resource 'document attachment' are specific, and the format mention distinguishes it from siblings like get_expense_attachment. However, it could be more explicit about what exactly is returned (the file data).

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 like get_document or other attachment getters. The description lacks context on prerequisites or scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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