get_recruiting_attachment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds the constraint that the attachmentId must belong to the resolved target, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no extraneous information. Every sentence adds value: the first specifies what the tool does, the second clarifies a critical constraint.

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 complexity of the target parameter (four variants) and the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description is largely complete. It could be improved by mentioning that this retrieves a single file and perhaps linking to list_recruiting_attachments, but it is adequate.

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 100%: the target parameter has a description explaining supported kinds, and attachmentId has a description of its role. The description adds marginal reinforcement ('must belong to target') but the schema already provides comprehensive detail. 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'one file attached directly to a Recruiting vacancy, candidate, applicant, or opinion.' It distinguishes from list tools and other attachment tools by specifying the targeted entities and the constraint that attachmentId must belong to the resolved target.

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 a usage constraint (attachmentId must belong to target) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like list_recruiting_attachments or get_attachment. No when-not or alternative tools are mentioned.

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