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

The description states the tool returns text, which aligns with the readOnly and idempotent annotations. It adds no extra behavioral detail beyond the annotations, such as response format or error behavior, but the annotations already cover safety expectations.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the primary action and then provides compact, useful mapping for document selection. There is no redundant or extraneous content.

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 document-fetch tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it names the resource, the action, and the valid document choices. It does not detail return formatting or error cases, but it covers the essential context for correct invocation.

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?

The schema already defines the single parameter `document` with an enum, and the description adds meaning by mapping many enum values to specific scenarios like `verification` for proving integration works. Not every enum value is individually explained, but the pattern is clear and the parameter is well covered.

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 returns the full text of a Spendline agent document and enumerates the available document types with their intended use cases. This makes the tool's purpose immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like spendline_check_integration_status or spendline_get_spend.

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 gives explicit selection criteria for many document values, such as using `quickstart` for fastest integration and `troubleshooting` when something fails. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like spendline_get_onboarding_instructions, but the value-specific guidance is strong enough to guide an agent in most cases.

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