Download invoice attachment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description need not repeat those. However, it does not clarify the response format (e.g., binary data, file content, or a URL) which would be useful for an agent.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words or boilerplate, making it easy to parse and understand.

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?

Without an output schema, the description is the sole source of information about what the tool returns. It only states the action and resource, leaving the return type and any relevant context unspecified, which may hinder correct usage.

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 input schema provides descriptions that merely repeat the parameter names ('Path parameter invoiceId'), and the tool description adds no further explanation about what these IDs represent or how they relate to the attachment. The meaning is not clarified beyond the obvious.

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 action (Downloads) and the resource (invoice attachment file), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like bokio_download_invoice or bokio_download_upload.

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 does not explicitly explain when to use this tool over alternatives, though the name and sibling list provide implicit context. No further guidance on invocation conditions or prerequisites is given.

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