percollate_download_epub

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it omits that this writes files to disk, where output lands by default, or how collisions/overwrites are handled. The bundling/cover/ToC points it does make largely restate schema parameters rather than adding behavioral context.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence is brief and mildly useful, though it partly repeats parameter names already in the schema.

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 16-parameter file-producing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it never mentions that files are written, the default output location, or failure behavior for unreachable URLs. The schema covers parameter meaning, so the gap is mainly behavioral.

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% across 16 parameters, so the schema already documents every option; the description adds no syntax, defaults, or interactions beyond it. 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?

The description states a specific verb (Download) and resource (web pages as an EPUB e-book), plus supporting scope (multiple URLs, cover page, ToC). It does not name the sibling formats (percollate_download_pdf/html/md), though the EPUB output is unambiguous from the name and text.

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?

No guidance on when to choose EPUB over the sibling PDF/HTML/MD exporters, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer format selection from the tool name alone.

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