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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses the headless Chrome dependency, the latency cost, the forced .pdf extension, and the fixed download location (ECFS_DOWNLOAD_DIR, default ~/Downloads/ecfs). It leaves out auth needs, overwrite behavior on repeated downloads, and failure modes, which keeps it below a 5.

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 action and outcome are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by identification semantics, then operational caveats. Four sentences, each carrying distinct information with 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 side-effecting download with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, timing, destination, and return value adequately. It stops short of describing error behavior or what happens on filename collisions, which an agent invoking a disk-writing tool would benefit from.

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 all three parameters are already documented in structured form, including the same {n} URL mapping for document_number and the subfolder rules for output_dir. The description restates the URL-position concept rather than adding syntax or edge-case meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 — 'Download one document (usually a PDF) from an ECFS filing and save it to disk' — and states the return value (saved file path). It is clearly a retrieval/save tool, distinguishable from siblings like ecfs_search_documents or ecfs_get_filing without opening any schema.

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 explains how to select the right document (submission ID plus the {n} position in the document URL) and adds operational context — a headless Chrome requirement and a few seconds per document. It does not name alternatives or explicitly say when to prefer ecfs_get_download_plan or ecfs_search_documents instead, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the return shape ('date_submission-range buckets each with a suggested_api_call') and the key benefit of avoiding duplicate/missing filings. It implies a safe read operation but never explicitly states that the tool is read-only or has no side effects, which is a minor gap given zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then crisp comparative context, then the specific use case and rationale. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the returned plan structure and the reason to call it, which is the essential context. A small gap remains because it does not state whether the tool itself is read-only or describe any cost/auth constraints, but overall it is nearly complete for a planning tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all seven filters in detail. The description adds only a general connection ('the same filters as ecfs_search_filings'), which is useful context but does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get a download plan for a filings search') and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling ecfs_search_filings by contrasting returned paginated results with date-bucketed plans. An agent can tell exactly what this tool produces versus what search_filings returns.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('before ecfs_search_filings for dockets with thousands of filings') and explains why the alternative, plain offset/limit paging, is unsafe ('can return duplicate or missing filings'). The condition for selecting this tool over its sibling is stated directly.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly confirm no side effects, nor does it mention permissions, error behavior, or return characteristics.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. The action and resource are immediately clear.

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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it does not explain what the returned filing contains or how errors like a missing submission ID are handled.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input parameter is already documented as the ECFS submission ID. The description's phrase 'by its submission ID' adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (Fetch), resource (ECFS filing), and scope (single, by submission ID). This implicitly distinguishes it from ecfs_search_filings, though no sibling is named directly.

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?

Gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ecfs_search_filings or ecfs_download_document. The 'by ID' phrasing implies usage but does not state prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It does disclose the read-only, non-destructive nature of a listing operation, but it omits any mention of authentication, rate limits, or the structure of the returned data. This is minimal but acceptable for a simple list tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It efficiently conveys the action and object without redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description states what it returns (the list of inboxes), which is sufficient for an agent to understand the basic behavior. The lack of return format detail is a minor gap given the low complexity.

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 has zero parameters, so the description need not elaborate on parameter usage. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and no additional parameter context is required.

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 action ('List') and the specific resource ('available inboxes for non-docketed filings in ECFS'). It distinguishes itself from sibling search/get tools by its listing nature, making its purpose 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, such as search_filings or get_filing. It doesn't mention preconditions, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It usefully discloses that the api_key is injected automatically and must not be supplied, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, error behavior, or that the response is a raw ECFS payload. That is modest added context for a pass-through tool.

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 tight sentences, with the escape-hatch role front-loaded and the credential caveat immediately after. 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 generic passthrough whose parameters are fully documented in the schema and which has no output schema, the description covers role and the one gotcha (auto api_key) an agent must know. It could say more about response shape or failure modes, but little is strictly missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters documented (path with base URL and examples, params with api_key exclusion), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates the api_key auto-injection already in the schema, adding no new syntax or format detail.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('calling any ECFS public API path/query parameters') and explicitly frames itself as the escape hatch for what the other tools don't cover, distinguishing it from all seven siblings by name of function.

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?

Clearly says to use it for endpoints or parameters not covered by the other tools, which is a real when-to-use condition. It does not, however, warn when NOT to use it (e.g. prefer a typed sibling when one exists) beyond the implicit 'not covered' clause.

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

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the important behavioral trait that this is a metadata-only read that will not return file contents. It also enumerates what the response contains (filename, page count, byte size, OCR status, viewer location). It stops short of stating auth requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior, so it is strong but not complete.

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 tight sentences: the first gives purpose and scope, the second gives return shape plus the pointer to the sibling tool. Everything is front-loaded and nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by describing both what is returned and what is deliberately not returned, plus the alternative for the download case. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% and there is a single parameter, so the schema already documents id_submission including the comma-separated multi-ID behavior. The description's 'by submission ID' / 'one or more filings' phrasing largely repeats that, adding little beyond the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the documents (attachments) associated with ECFS filings') with the scoping key (submission ID), and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling ecfs_download_document. An agent can distinguish it from ecfs_get_filing and the download tool without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: this tool lists metadata, and 'Use ecfs_download_document to save a document's PDF' names the alternative and the condition that selects it. The 'not the document's file contents' exclusion is exactly the when-not guidance an agent needs.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about authentication, rate limits, result ordering defaults, pagination behavior, or the free-text fallback for filer names. The only behavioral detail in the tool (the retry-as-free-text behavior and the resulting `note`) lives in the schema, not the description.

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 sentences, no filler, with the resource scope front-loaded before the filter list. Efficient, though the second sentence is essentially a restatement of the schema property names.

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 9-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits what a result looks like, whether pagination metadata is returned, and any auth context. The schema covers parameter detail well, but the description leaves the agent to infer the rest.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the filter categories (docket, filer, submission type, date) that the schema already documents in more depth, adding no format or syntax detail beyond it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search filings submitted to the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System') and names the filterable dimensions. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like ecfs_search_documents or ecfs_search_proceedings, so an agent must infer the boundary, but the resource is 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 enumerates usable filters, which implies when the tool is appropriate, but it never says when to prefer it over ecfs_search_documents or ecfs_search_proceedings, nor does it state prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Search' implies a safe read, but the description does not confirm this is non-mutating, nor does it mention pagination behavior, result shape, or any auth/rate-limit context. Minimal disclosure for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally tight.

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 read-only search with zero required parameters and fully described schema, the definition is minimally adequate. No output schema exists, so the description could say more about what results contain, and it offers no routing guidance against seven siblings.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (name, limit, offset) are already documented with examples and defaults. The description only alludes to the 'name' filter via 'by docket number', adding no new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (proceedings/dockets) in the FCC ECFS system, clarifying that 'proceedings' means dockets. This implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like search_documents and search_filings, though it never names them, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives only an example query ('e.g. by docket number') but no guidance on when to choose this tool over ecfs_search_documents or ecfs_search_filings, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the boundary from the resource noun alone.

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