Get inquiry attachment

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 only states the action 'get' without explaining return format (binary file, URL, etc.), whether authentication is required, or what error cases may occur. This is a significant gap for a file 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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than appropriate conciseness. A single phrase that repeats the title does not earn its place because it adds no meaningful information. It lacks structure and any front-loaded key details.

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 absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter documentation, the description is entirely inadequate. The tool likely downloads a file, but the agent has no idea how the response is delivered or how 'path' and 'label' are used. The minimal text leaves the tool's behavior almost completely unspecified.

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 mention either parameter ('path' or 'label'). The agent receives no information about what values are expected or how they affect the request, so the description fails to compensate for the schema's silence.

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 '問い合わせ添付ファイル取得' is a Japanese translation of the title 'Get inquiry attachment' and essentially restates it. It mentions a verb and resource but adds no specific context, such as how it differs from the sibling rms_inquiry_attachment_post. This is tautological rather than clarifying.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or what alternatives exist. It fails to mention any prerequisite like an inquiry ID or attachment path, and there is no contrast with the POST counterpart or related inquiry tools.

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