get_pcc_letter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes return fields and advises on handling superseded status, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state read-only nature or any side effects, but the 'get' verb makes it clear.

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 with no wasted sentences. It front-loads the purpose, immediately provides usage rules, then details parameters and return fields in a structured manner.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema, the description lists all expected return fields (22 items) and includes behavioral advice on handling results. This fully equips the agent to use and interpret the output 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 has 0% description coverage (only titles). The description compensates fully: explains letter_id is from search_pcc_letters results, and letter_no is a fuzzy match with an example. This adds critical meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool retrieves full text of a single PCC letter, including specific fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_pcc_letters (search) and other get_* tools for different document types.

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 states that letter_id and letter_no are alternatives (擇一提供), and provides a crucial usage condition: if status is superseded/partial, do not directly cite but instead refer to the superseding letter or mark as obsolete. This is high-quality guidance.

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