getDocumentAttachmentContent

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. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the UTF-8 text decoding behavior, the warning that binary files arrive garbled, and the distinction between bytes vs metadata. It doesn't describe pagination or error behavior, but for a simple read tool this is sufficient.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste. The core action and return type are front-loaded, the binary-file caveat is placed early, and the sibling routing is at the end. 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?

For a read-only, 5-param tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the return format, the binary-file limitation, and the sibling tools for metadata and ID discovery. The only minor gap is that it doesn't mention the revision parameter's behavior, but the schema already covers that.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds the semantic distinction between this tool (bytes) and getDocumentAttachment (metadata), which helps an agent understand what attachmentId refers to, but it doesn't add syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Downloads'), a specific resource ('raw file content of one Document attachment'), and the exact return type ('UTF-8 text'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools getDocumentAttachment and getDocumentAttachments, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this only when you need the file's bytes') and names the alternatives for metadata and ID discovery. It also warns about binary files arriving garbled, which is a clear exclusion condition. This fully routes the agent to the correct tool.

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