get_attachment_content

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that by disclosing the embedded-resource transfer mode and the required configuration flag. It does not describe error behavior when the configuration flag is false, but this is a minor gap given the 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?

Two short sentences front-load the core action and the key contrast, then add the prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no 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?

For a low-complexity, read-only transfer tool, the description covers the resource type, the no-local-file behavior, and the required configuration. The main gap is the unresolved account_name meaning in the schema, but the description itself is otherwise complete.

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 tool description provides no parameter-level guidance. Although schema coverage is nominally 100%, the schema's account_name description is a copy-paste error ('The email ID obtained from list_emails_metadata or get_emails_content.'), so a required parameter's meaning is not actually conveyed, and the description does not compensate.

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 ('Read') and a precise resource ('one email attachment as an MCP embedded binary resource'), so the tool's function is immediately clear. It also contrasts with writing a local file, which distinguishes it from the sibling download_attachment.

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 states the key context: use this mode when the attachment content should be transferred as an embedded binary resource without creating a local file, and it gives a prerequisite (enable_attachment_content=true). It does not explicitly name download_attachment as the file-based alternative, but the contrast is strong enough.

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