list_report_intent_attachments

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the response contains expiring download URLs (implying time-sensitivity) and that no file bytes are transferred — a meaningful distinction for an agent that might otherwise expect content.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the primary purpose is front-loaded and the clarifying exclusion follows. Every sentence earns its place.

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-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers the behavioral essentials for a one-parameter read tool. It is only marginally incomplete — no mention of pagination, ordering, or empty-result behavior for a metadata list.

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% and the description never mentions report_intent_id, so it adds no meaning over the schema. The single parameter is largely self-explanatory by name, which keeps this at a baseline 3 rather than lower.

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 (List) and resource (attachment metadata for a report-intent draft), and preemptively rules out the adjacent operations (downloading bytes, uploading attachments). No sibling tool covers attachments, so the scope is unambiguous.

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 clear context for use (attachments of a report-intent draft) and explicitly states the two things it is not for, which steers the agent away from download/upload operations. It stops short of naming an alternative tool to use for those operations, so no explicit when-instead routing.

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