get-shared-mailbox-attachment-content

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's additional disclosure that this performs text extraction rather than raw binary download is valuable context. The hint that fileName helps pick the right text extractor further clarifies behavioral expectations.

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 that front-loads the core action and resource, with a useful parenthetical reference to the sibling tool. There is no wasted or redundant wording.

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 tool is simple, all required parameters are well-documented in the schema, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description sufficiently conveys the extraction behavior. It does not explain the relationship with get-mail-attachment-content in depth, but for this read-only, fully-schema-covered tool the core information is present.

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 100% parameter documentation, so the schema already carries most of the semantic burden. The description adds little beyond the parenthetical text-extraction behavior, and the fileName parameter's role is already stated in 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 (download an attachment) and the resource scope (shared-mailbox message), which distinguishes it from get-mail-attachment-content. However, the parenthetical merely says 'like get-mail-attachment-content' rather than explicitly explaining how the two tools differ, so differentiation is good but not fully spelled out.

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 this tool should be used for shared-mailbox attachments and that it performs text extraction much like get-mail-attachment-content. It does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over its close sibling, nor does it mention a prerequisite such as first listing attachments to obtain attachmentId.

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