Get Sent Email Attachment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds the time-limited download URL behavior, which is a meaningful behavioral trait not covered by annotations. This goes beyond the minimal bar.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and object, and contains no redundant information. Every word 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 simple 2-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and a readOnly annotation, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the scope (sent email), and the notable behavior (time-limited URL). It lacks explicit references to alternatives, but the tool is simple enough that this is not a critical gap.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it merely ties 'specific attachment' and 'sent email' to the id and emailId 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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('attachment from a sent email'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list-sent-email-attachments (list vs. get specific) and get-received-email-attachment (sent vs. received).

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 sets clear context: this tool is for retrieving a specific attachment from a sent email, implying you already have an attachment ID and email ID. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sent-email scope is clear from both name and description.

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