ecm_get_piece

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

With no annotations, the description carries more responsibility. It adds useful behavioral context in the include_media description: full media URLs are 'very long,' default to false, and should be enabled only when images are needed. However, it does not describe the response structure, potential errors, or whether any auth/scoping constraints apply.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence, and the parameter descriptions are economical. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name appears.

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?

The definition is adequate for a simple two-parameter lookup with no output schema, and the include_media note improves completeness. However, it leaves ambiguity with ecm_get_piece_content and does not specify what 'detailed information' includes, so an agent may not know exactly what to expect or which sibling to pick.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining why include_media defaults to false (URLs are very long) and when to set it to true (need scanned images). This extra rationale helps the agent make a deliberate parameter choice.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Get detailed information about a specific mail piece,' and mentions scanned content URLs as part of the response. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling ecm_get_piece_content, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over ecm_get_piece_content or ecm_list_pieces; it only states what the tool does. The include_media parameter offers conditional guidance for one optional flag, but no tool-selection context or exclusions.

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