fiken_get_invoice_draft_attachments

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

The annotation readOnlyHint: true already indicates a safe read operation. The description's 'Returns' aligns with this but adds no further behavioral details (e.g., no info on authorization, rate limits, or what happens if draftId is invalid).

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core functionality.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and a readOnlyHint, the description is mostly adequate. However, lacking an output schema, a brief note on the return format (e.g., list of attachment objects) would improve completeness without adding much length.

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 0% and the description does not explain the draftId parameter, which is the only required field. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate by clarifying the parameter's purpose, but it does not.

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 'Returns all attachments for an invoice draft' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like fiken_get_invoice_attachments (for invoices) and fiken_get_invoice_draft (for the draft itself).

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 such as fiken_get_invoice_attachments or other attachment retrieval tools. The description does not provide any context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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