postgrid_get_letter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Get' conveys a read-only operation and the description names what the response contains (details, status, tracking), but it does not mention error behavior for unknown IDs, whether the letter PDF is included, or any other response traits. It is adequate but thin.

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 12-word sentence with zero filler. The verb is front-loaded, the resource is named immediately, and every clause earns its place by naming distinct information categories (details, status, tracking).

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what an agent needs to know before calling: what it does, how to identify the target, and what kind of data comes back. The only gap is absence of any error/edge-case expectations, which is minor for a simple GET-by-ID operation.

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 the single id parameter with an example format ('letter_xxx'). The description's 'by ID' adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('a letter'), and the specific data returned (details, status, tracking information), plus the retrieval method ('by ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like postgrid_list_letters (bulk listing), postgrid_cancel_letter (mutation), and postgrid_create_letter (creation).

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 'by ID' phrasing and the promise of details/status/tracking imply the use case: when you need a single letter's current state and have its ID. However, the description never explicitly contrasts with postgrid_list_letters (to find IDs first) or states when not to use this tool, so routing guidance is left to inference.

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