get_attachment_text

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds substantial behavioral context: supported MIME types, HTML stripping, calendar summarization, a 512KB raw-content limit, and clear failure for non-text formats. This goes well beyond what annotations provide and does not contradict them.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by highly relevant details about size limits, format compatibility, and alternatives. Every sentence contributes meaningful information 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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description fully covers what it does, supported formats, limits, and failure modes. It also references sibling tools for fallback, making it self-sufficient for an agent to select and invoke 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%; both emailId and attachmentId are already described with formats and sources. The description adds no further parameter-specific details, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 function: 'Extract plain text from a text-like attachment' with a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes itself from get_attachment_content by mentioning the base64 handling and size-limit differences, making its unique role clear.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: use for text-like attachments, when avoiding base64 encoding, and when the attachment exceeds the inline-base64 size limit. It also names alternatives (get_attachment_content or save_attachment) for non-text formats, and states the 512KB bound.

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