List attachments for a solicitation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It proactively explains a common edge case: an empty list is a real state and returns zero, not an error. This adds genuine transparency beyond a simple 'list attachments' statement, though it does not cover authentication or other behaviors.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core function, and the second clarifies an important behavioral nuance. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 listing tool with fully documented schema parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and the notable empty-list behavior. It could mention usage relative to fetch_attachment, but that gap is more about usage guidelines. Overall it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional parameter-level meaning; it only references the notion of 'one notice', which maps to solicitationNumber but adds no new detail.

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 tool returns 'downloadable attachment URLs for one notice', specifying both the action (returns) and the resource (attachment URLs for a specific notice). This distinguishes it from siblings like fetch_attachment (which likely downloads a single attachment) and search_solicitations (which searches rather than lists for a known notice).

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 use for a single known notice ('for one notice') but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. Sibling tool names provide context, but the description itself lacks direct usage guidance.

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