list_attachments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the nature of the returned content (attachment metadata grouped by song), but says nothing about scope, refresh/recency, or whether this returns only metadata rather than file contents.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and the content examples in parentheses; nothing is wasted. It is arguably over-terse for a two-required-parameter tool, but there is no filler.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations describing scope, the description should carry more: it never explains how the two required IDs relate, what identifying fields each attachment carries, or how this differs from download_attachments. For a required-two-parameter listing tool it is under-specified.

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 description coverage is 0% for both required parameters, and the description does not mention either one. plan_id is self-evident from the prose ('one of your plans'), but service_type_id is entirely opaque and undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 names the resource clearly (files attached to a plan) and even enumerates content types (charts, lead sheets, audio), so an agent knows what comes back. However it is a noun phrase with no explicit verb, and it does not differentiate itself from the adjacent sibling download_attachments (fetch metadata vs retrieve the file bytes).

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative download_attachments. The agent gets no instruction about when this list is the right call versus downloading, or how to obtain the required plan_id and service_type_id.

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