fiken_list_sale_attachments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'List attachments', implying read-only, but fails to disclose pagination, limits, or whether attachments are returned in any particular order. Lacks details on behavior beyond the minimal verb.

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 (one sentence, six words) and front-loads the action. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool, though could include slightly more detail without becoming verbose.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain what the response contains (e.g., list of attachment objects, metadata). For a list operation, this is a significant gap. The tool is simple, but the description omits return format details.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters (companySlug, saleId). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, achieving the baseline of 3.

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 'List attachments for a specific sale', specifying the action (list) and the resource (sale attachments). It distinguishes from sibling tools like fiken_list_invoice_attachments by targeting a different entity.

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_list_invoice_attachments or fiken_list_purchase_attachments. Missing context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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