Get Gmail Attachment Content

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it saves to disk, returns a temporary URL valid for 1 hour in HTTP mode, and may re-fetch message metadata. Annotations provide limited safety info (readOnlyHint=false), so the description carries the burden of explaining side effects and output behavior, which it does effectively.

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 concise and well-structured: it opens with the main action, then breaks down output modes in two clear sentences, and ends with a relevant behavioral caveat. Every sentence adds distinct value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and the input schema is thorough, the description provides the essential extra context: mode-specific outputs, time validity, and side effects. It does not explain error cases or prerequisites, but these are not critical given the tool's moderate complexity and the schema richness.

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%, with detailed descriptions for all four parameters including return_base64. The tool description itself does not add parameter-level information, but since the schema fully documents each parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate—the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action with a specific verb ('Downloads') and resource ('email attachment'), and further specifies it saves to local disk. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_gmail_message_content by focusing on attachment content, and the mode-specific output details reinforce its unique purpose.

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 clear context on when to use the tool by explaining its behavior in stdio and HTTP modes, which helps select it for attachment downloads. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for most scenarios without needing explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance.

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