epost_read_storage_document

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the tool as reading/reporting information, implying read-only, but does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The optional PDF saving is a side effect noted.

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 efficient sentences: first states core function and outputs, second explains rationale and optional parameter. No wasted words.

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?

Despite good purpose clarity, the description lacks parameter usage guidance, return format, and explicit behavioral traits. For a tool with 5 undocumented parameters and no output schema, more detail is needed to be complete.

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 coverage is 20% (only output_dir described). Description adds no guidance on how to identify the document (index, title, folder_id, letter_id are unexplained). It only repeats the output_dir purpose.

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?

Description clearly states it opens a storage document and reports specific fields (sender, subject, type, date, amount, folder). It distinguishes from siblings by noting the card list only shows 'Gescannter Brief' and this tool is the only way to classify archived documents.

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?

Description implies when to use (to classify archived documents) by stating it's the only way. It mentions the optional output_dir parameter for saving PDF, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare alternatives.

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