ecm_get_piece_content

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the primary behavior — returning a scanned PDF and/or envelope images — which is useful for a read-only fetch. However, it does not describe the output format (e.g., binary, base64, URL), error behavior, or what happens when no content exists, so transparency is partial.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action and subject, and the second clarifies the return payload. Every word contributes to understanding, with no filler or repetition.

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 getter with full schema coverage, the description is reasonably adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves key context unspecified: the exact shape of the returned data, how 'all' behaves in practice, and any failure or empty-result semantics. An agent may still be unsure how to consume the result.

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%, and both parameters already have meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema; it reinforces the PDF/image distinction but does not explain additional parameter nuances or dependencies.

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 'Get' and the resource 'scanned content (PDF or images) from a mail piece'. It also specifies the return types (scanned PDF and/or envelope images), making the tool's function unambiguous and distinct from more general ECM operations.

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 description implies the usage context: when you need the scanned content of a mail piece. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to use this tool over alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of related tools for metadata or other mail piece operations.

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