get-mail-attachment-content

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, lowering the bar. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond those annotations: document formats are converted to text, while other binaries like images are returned as base64. It does not address limits or error behavior for unsupported types, but the core transformation behavior is well disclosed.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the format-conversion behavior is the only additional detail, which is exactly what an agent needs to anticipate the output shape.

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 read-only fetch tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what will be returned: text for common document formats and base64 for other binaries. It could be more complete by specifying behavior for unsupported file types and clarifying that this applies to regular mail rather than shared mailboxes, but the essential call flow is understandable.

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%, so the schema already describes each parameter, including fileName's role in selecting the text extractor. The description enriches that context by explaining the text-vs-base64 conversion, but messageId and attachmentId remain only generically described as 'Value for ...' in the schema and are not expanded here.

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 ('Download an attachment') and the resource ('attachment'), and it describes the output as the attachment's content. It adds helpful format detail (text vs base64) but does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling get-shared-mailbox-attachment-content; differentiation relies on the tool names.

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 usage is implied: after listing attachments, call this tool to fetch content. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention the shared-mailbox sibling, so an agent must infer which tool applies rather than being told.

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