Get a scheduled message attachment

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

Annotations already cover readOnly and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond that: it explicitly notes that the response returns raw bytes (including text files) and is not a JSON object, which is critical for agents expecting a standard JSON response. It also clarifies that attachmentId is a filename.

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 efficient and well-structured. It opens with the core purpose, then provides the concrete endpoint and key behavioral nuances (non-JSON response, attachmentId meaning). The reference link adds utility without bloat. No redundancy or fluff.

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 GET operation with two path parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: the endpoint, the response type, the nature of attachmentId, and the absence of a body. Combined with annotations that address safety, an agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema only lists path parameters without individual descriptions. The description enriches the semantics by stating that attachmentId is a file name and giving the URL pattern. This adds meaning for attachmentId, while scheduledMessageId is self-evident from its name. The query object is documented in the schema as having no documented names, and the description does not add more, but that's acceptable given the GET nature.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get a scheduled message attachment' and provides the exact API endpoint URL. This distinguishes it from attachment tools for other resources (events, scenarios) and leaves no ambiguity about the resource type.

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 implies usage context by naming the specific resource (scheduled message attachments), but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools or state when this should be used over others. The name itself differentiates, but explicit guidance is missing.

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