Request Attachment Text

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

Beyond annotations, it discloses required permission, idempotent caching for 24 hours, OCR unavailability, status/outcome checking, and fallback behavior. The annotations already cover safety and idempotency, but the description adds useful operational context; the '7500000 bytes' wording is somewhat ambiguous relative to the schema's max_bytes limit.

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 compact and front-loads the main action and key constraints. Most sentences earn their place, though the 'up to 7500000 bytes at no extra charge' phrase is slightly ambiguous and could be clearer.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers permissions, caching, OCR limitations, status checking, and fallback adequately for an asynchronous extraction-request tool, though it could better distinguish this tool from its close siblings.

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 parameter meanings are already documented in the input schema. The description adds little parameter-specific detail beyond an ambiguous size mention, so it meets the baseline for fully documented parameters.

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 and resource: extract readable text from an attachment. It includes size, cost, permission, and caching constraints, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling attachment-text tools such as mailbox_get_attachment_text or request variants.

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?

It gives clear prerequisites (mailbox.read), explains the 24-hour cache reuse behavior, states that OCR is unavailable, and tells the caller to check status/outcome and fall back to the original download if extraction fails. It lacks explicit routing guidance versus sibling attachment tools.

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