fiken_get_purchase_attachments

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

The description confirms the read-only nature (consistent with readOnlyHint annotation) but adds no additional behavioral details, such as whether attachments are returned as URLs or binary content. Since annotations already cover the safety profile, this is adequate but not enriched.

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 fluff. It is front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose. Every word 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?

The description is minimal. Given the lack of output schema, it does not explain what 'attachments' means (e.g., file list, URLs, metadata). For a simple retrieval tool, it is barely adequate but could be more informative.

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 one required parameter (purchaseId) with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not mention or explain the parameter, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the name alone. The description adds no value beyond the 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 that the tool returns all attachments for a purchase. It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like fiken_get_invoice_attachments, which follow the same pattern.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does without any context or exclusions. Sibling tools have similar names, and the agent has no explicit direction.

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