download_bundle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so thoroughly: it discloses filesystem side effects (writing under FERC_DOWNLOAD_DIR/bundles), default folder reorganization, file/size caps, the skipping behavior for restricted/not-found accessions with reasons and categories, and the fact that it does not return file bytes.

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 dense but every sentence adds value: purpose, alternative comparison, parameter semantics, caps, skip behavior, and the no-bytes return caveat. It is front-loaded with the core purpose before diving into details.

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 four optional parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description covers all necessary operational context: selection semantics, side effects, limits, failure handling, and return caveats. The presence of an output schema means return-field detail is not required in the description.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter: accession_numbers select all public files on each accession, file_ids target exact attachments, docket selects public files via search, and organize_by_accession controls folder structure with a clear default behavior.

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 and resource: 'Zip many public files into one archive under FERC_DOWNLOAD_DIR/bundles.' It also explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling tool download_file by saying 'Prefer this over repeated download_file calls,' making the tool's distinct role unambiguous.

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 clearly states when to use this tool ('Prefer this over repeated download_file calls') and enumerates valid input combinations. It does not explicitly spell out exclusions like 'use download_file for a single file or restricted accessions,' but the restricted/not-found skipping behavior implies those cases are not this tool's purpose.

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