fiken_get_purchase_draft_attachments

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

Annotations already provide 'readOnlyHint: true'. The description does not add further behavioral details (e.g., error handling, empty results, or performance). It is adequate but minimal for a read-only retrieval 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?

The description is one concise sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the single parameter, read-only nature, and no output schema, the description is functional but lacks information about the return format, error conditions, or any prerequisites. It is minimally complete for a straightforward retrieval but could benefit from more context.

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 0% description coverage, and the description does not elaborate on the 'draftId' parameter beyond the name. While 'draftId' is self-explanatory, the absence of type or format details means the description adds little value over 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 the action ('Returns all attachments') and the resource ('for a purchase draft'). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'fiken_get_sale_draft_attachments' or 'fiken_get_invoice_draft_attachments'.

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 implies when to use this tool (when needing attachments for a purchase draft) but offers no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name.

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