epf_download_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses Bearer auth and the meaning of status codes (N=new, S=started, X=cancelled, C=completed), but it does not describe the return format, pagination behavior, or what happens when the status filter is omitted. This is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 no filler. The core scope is front-loaded, the auth requirement is stated plainly, and the status filter is packed into a compact inline list.

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: one optional parameter and no output schema, so the burden of explaining return values falls on the description. It covers purpose, auth, and filtering, but not what the returned list looks like or whether pagination/ordering applies. Without an output schema, that is a meaningful omission.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning beyond the schema. It does so by decoding the status enum values and stating that filtering is optional. It does not mention the default behavior when no status is supplied, but it meaningfully compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 ('List'), a clear resource ('EPF download files'), and an explicit scope ('productId=PARENT'). This distinguishes it from siblings like epf_download_epf_file, which downloads, and epf_update_status, which updates.

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 the listing use case by naming the resource and optional status filter, and it correctly notes the Bearer auth requirement. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as epf_download_epf_file or epf_update_status, nor does it provide exclusions.

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