read_announcement_attachment

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

The description reveals that the operation can read, index, or download and that it returns 'sourced extracted text and optional local path', which adds behavioral context beyond the idempotent/readOnly annotations. It does not detail side effects of indexing or where downloading writes files, but it does not contradict the annotations (readOnlyHint=false is consistent with download/index).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no filler. The cross-reference to get_announcements is placed where it is immediately actionable.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description states the inputs' origin, the action, and the return shape ('sourced extracted text and optional local path'). It could specify how offset/maxChars/download affect the call, but an agent has enough 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?

Schema coverage is 50%, and the description helps for the three required IDs by pointing to get_announcements as their source. However, offset, download, and maxChars have no schema description and only 'optional local path' hints at download's effect; the description does not fully compensate for the undocumented optional 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 opens with a specific verb phrase—'Read, index or download a file belonging to an exact course announcement'—which names the exact resource and scope. It further disambiguates by directing the agent to get_announcements for the required IDs, so it cannot be confused with other attachment-reading siblings.

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 a useful prerequisite ('Use announcement/file IDs from get_announcements'), but it never states when to choose this tool over read_assignment_attachment, download_material, or read_material. There is no explicit exclusion or alternative selection condition, so usage context is only implied.

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