get_transaction_attachment_url

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals that the URL is short-lived and signed, and that the response includes an expires_at timestamp. This adds useful behavioral context not present in the schema or annotations, though it does not specify the expiration duration or any authentication requirements.

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 just two sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core action and then adds the essential response detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides the key return elements (URL and expires_at) and communicates the temporary nature of the URL. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.

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%, and the file_id parameter is already described as 'ID of the file attachment.' The description does not add further parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a short-lived signed download URL for a transaction file attachment.' The qualifiers 'short-lived signed' and 'download URL' make the tool's exact purpose clear, distinguishing it from attachment-management siblings.

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 use case is clear from the description: retrieve a temporary download link for a file attachment. It does not explicitly name alternatives like attach_file_to_transaction or delete_transaction_attachment, nor provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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