get_attachment_download_url

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that the URL is short-lived and expires, and that for ZK/Vault/lock-encrypted notes the bytes at that URL remain opaque ciphertext with no decrypt path. It does not cover auth/permission requirements or whether the URL is single-use, but the expiration and encryption caveats are real behavioral value.

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?

Two sentences, purpose first and the encryption caveat second, with no filler. The ZK/Vault/lock-encrypted phrasing is dense jargon, but each clause conveys distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers the critical caveat an agent would otherwise miss. Remaining gaps are permissions and error behavior for locked/encrypted notes, which are secondary for a URL-minting 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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no meaning for note_id or attachment_id. The description implies a one-note-to-one-attachment relationship and that a URL is produced per attachment, but it never explains the identifier formats or the failure mode when note_id/attachment_id don't match.

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 names the specific resource (a single attachment's file bytes) and the exact artifact returned (a short-lived signed URL), and it clarifies that the download itself happens outside this tool. That scope distinguishes it from sibling reads like list_attachments and get_note without opening either schema.

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 phrase 'directly (not through this tool)' implies the usage pattern, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no named alternative (e.g., list_attachments to discover attachment_id), and no stated prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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