get_deal_attachment

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The embedded HTTP method 'GET /dealAttachments/{id}' hints at read-only semantics, which is some value. However, it says nothing about auth/permission requirements, 404 or error behavior for missing ids, rate limits, or whether the response contains metadata versus binary content — significant gaps for a fetch operation.

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?

One short sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the action verb and resource. The HTTP endpoint hint is a compact, useful addition. Nothing in the description is wasted.

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 simple get-by-id operation with two parameters, the core action is adequately stated. But with no output schema, no annotations, and no behavioral description, an agent cannot know what the tool returns, how to handle a missing id, or what extraQuery filters actually do to the fetch. Adequate for invoking, incomplete for confident correct use.

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 coverage is only 50%; the required 'id' parameter has no schema description and the tool description adds only 'by id' to clarify it is the lookup key. The extraQuery parameter is already well-documented in the schema with an example, so the description adds no value there. The description does not fully compensate for the undocumented id parameter.

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 clear verb+resource ('Get a deal attachment by id') so an agent knows the operation. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like create_deal_attachment, update_deal_attachment, and get_person_attachment via the verb and 'deal' scope, but it never explicitly names or contrasts those siblings, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_person_attachment for person attachments, or list_deals to find an id first). No preconditions, no when-not-to-use, and no exclusions are stated. The agent must guess when this tool is the right choice among the 100+ siblings.

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