download_email_attachment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals two modes: redirect vs JSON URL response via the 'json' parameter. However, it does not mention error handling, permissions, or what happens when an attachment is not found.

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 very short (one sentence) and to the point. It avoids unnecessary detail, though the '[query]' placeholder seems out of 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no nested objects), the description is adequate but lacks details on return value format (beyond URL), error conditions, and behavior without the 'json' parameter.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value: it paraphrases the action but does not explain the 'query' mention or provide additional context for the 'attachment_id' parameter.

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 purpose: 'Descargar adjunto de email' (download email attachment) and 'Obtiene la URL de descarga' (obtains download URL). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'upload_email_attachment' and 'download_conversation_file'. However, the inclusion of '[query]' is unclear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like 'download_conversation_file' or 'get_email_thread_detail' might also involve attachments, but no usage context is provided.

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