Download multiple-sale report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the 'Read' note adds little. However, the description adds a useful behavioral detail: the file is returned base64-encoded, which is not captured in annotations or schema. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loads the action and resource, and contains no redundant or filler text. Every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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 download tool with two described parameters and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what is downloaded, how to identify it, and the output format. No output schema exists, so the base64 return note is valuable. Minor gaps like error handling or file size limits are not critical here.

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% and both parameters are well-described as GUIDs for the report and attachment. The description reinforces their roles ('report id' and 'attachment id') but doesn't add new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Download') with a precise resource ('Multiple Sale report attachment') and identifies the form numbers (ATF Form 3310.4/5300.9), clearly distinguishing it from sibling download tools like download_attachment or download_4473.

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 use for multiple-sale report attachments by naming the resource, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like download_attachment. No exclusion or alternative guidance is provided.

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