pingen_download_letter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key prerequisite (letter being processed/sent) but doesn't mention potential errors, file overwrite behavior, or that it saves to a local filesystem. This is minimal but sufficient for a simple download operation.

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 a single, highly informative sentence. It includes the action, target, destination, and a timing constraint without any redundancy or filler.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, where it writes, and when it's available. It doesn't need to explain return values, and the lack of nested objects keeps it straightforward.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains output_path as the destination, but letter_id is left implicit, relying on the tool name for meaning. This partial clarification justifies a mid-range score.

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 action: 'Download the letter PDF to output_path'. It specifies the verb (download), the resource (letter PDF), and the destination (output_path), making it distinct from siblings like pingen_get_letter (which likely retrieves metadata) and pingen_list_letters.

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 parenthetical '(available once the letter is processed/sent)' provides clear timing guidance for when this tool should be used. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context and sibling names imply the appropriate scenario, earning a score above baseline.

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