download_attachment

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool returns only the URL and has no filesystem writes, making it safe for hosted deployments. It does not detail auth requirements or rate limits, but for a read operation this is adequate.

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 concise and well-structured. It opens with a clear summary, adds a behavioral note, and then lists parameters in a clean 'Args' block. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 (3 parameters, 1 required, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, how to use it, and parameter semantics. It appropriately omits return details since the output schema exists.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It defines each parameter: blob_id as 'Blob ID of the attachment (from get_email_attachments)', name as 'Filename for the download', and content_type as 'MIME type for the download.' This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema.

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's purpose: 'Get a download URL for an email attachment.' It specifies the resource (download URL) and action (get), and notes that it does not write to the filesystem. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_email_attachments' which lists attachments.

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 effectively communicates when to use the tool: to obtain a download URL for an attachment. It also clarifies what the tool does not do (does not write to filesystem) and implies dependency on 'get_email_attachments' for the blob_id. However, it does not explicitly list prerequisites or provide guidance on when not to use it.

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