get_attachment_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly succeeds: it discloses per-format output behavior (tab-separated rows per sheet, pretty-printed JSON, plain text) and that images go through an external Google Vision OCR call. It omits failure modes for unsupported formats, size/time limits, and OCR cost implications.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a scannable format-to-output mapping, then the prerequisite and use cases. Every line earns its place with 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be restated, yet the description usefully explains the shape of extracted content per file type. Combined with the format list and prerequisite, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though unsupported-format and error behavior remain 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so both integer parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description compensates partially by explaining that attachment_id comes from list_attachments, but ticket_id is left to inference and no format or constraint hints are given.

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?

States a specific verb (extract) and resource (text from a Freshdesk ticket attachment) and enumerates the exact formats handled. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling query_attachment, which sounds like it may also retrieve attachment content.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite workflow ('Use list_attachments first to get the attachment_id') and names intended use cases (investigation reports, domain lists, DNS screenshots). It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or how it relates to query_attachment.

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