get_mailing_zip

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

The description indicates the tool is read-only and gives the HTTP method (GET), which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential behaviors such as auth requirements, error conditions, or what happens if save_path is null. With no annotations, the description carries the burden but falls short of full transparency.

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 concise, containing only two sentences and an endpoint. It is front-loaded with the key action. However, it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter documentation and behavior for optional fields like save_path. More detail is needed for a download tool that handles file saving.

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, and the description does not explain any parameters. While the endpoint hints at 'scanbox_id' and 'uuid', no semantics are provided for 'save_path' or the required parameters beyond the schema's type.

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 ('Download a mailing's ZIP') and specifies the resource ('individual PDFs') with the verb 'download'. It also includes the HTTP endpoint and identifies the tool as 'Read-only', which distinguishes it from mutation tools.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool over siblings like get_mailing_pdf or get_mailing. It mentions 'Read-only' but lacks explicit context for selection or exclusion of alternatives.

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