Preis für einen Postbrief (Standard oder Einschreiben). Länder: DE/AT/CH.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pages | No | Seitenzahl (optional; sonst aus PDF). | |
| country | No | Zielland: DE | AT | CH (Default DE). | |
| pdfBase64 | No | Das zu versendende PDF. | |
| registered | No | Einwurf-Einschreiben statt Standard. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates a read-only price lookup via 'Preis', but doesn't state that it doesn't send anything or describe the response structure. It doesn't contradict anything, but lacks detail.
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 a single concise sentence that effectively conveys the tool's core function. No superfluous words.
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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description could be more comprehensive, but for a simple quote tool it covers the essential purpose. It doesn't mention currency or response structure, but the name and description make the primary return value obvious.
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 schema fully documents each parameter, and the description adds semantic context by mapping 'Standard oder Einschreiben' to the registered flag and 'DE/AT/CH' to the country parameter. This enhances understanding 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 clearly states the tool provides a price for a postal letter (standard/registered) and lists supported countries. It distinguishes from sibling 'fax_quote' by specifically mentioning 'Postbrief', though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'calculate'.
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 usage for obtaining letter prices, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternative quote tools (e.g., fax_quote) or any prerequisites. It's minimally adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool targets a distinct action and resource: fax, brief, envelope, template, account, etc. There is no noticeable overlap; even fill_pdf and fill_template are clearly differentiated by type of PDF.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., account_balance, fax_confirm, search_templates). No mixing of conventions or irregular styles.
With 33 tools, the server covers multiple subdomains (PDF, fax, postal, signatures, templates). This is on the higher side but still reasonable for a comprehensive document processing server. However, it could benefit from consolidation.
The tool surface covers core document workflows: fill, sign, scan, fax, mail, template exploration, and account management. Minor gaps exist (e.g., PDF merging or splitting), but most user journeys are supported.
